A SAS Program Combining R Functionalities to Implement Pattern-Mixture Models

Pattern-mixture models have gained considerable interest in recent years. Patternmixture modeling allows the analysis of incomplete longitudinal outcomes under a variety of missingness mechanisms. In this manuscript, we describe a SAS program which combines R functionalities to fit pattern-mixture models, considering the cases that missingness mechanisms are at random and not at random. Patterns are defined based on missingness at every time point and parameter estimation is based on a full group-bytime interaction. The program implements a multiple imputation method under so-called identifying restrictions. The code is illustrated using data from a placebo-controlled clinical trial. This manuscript and the program are directed to SAS users with minimal knowledge of the R language

Rationale and protocol for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of nangibotide in patients with septic shock (ASTONISH) phase IIb randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Septic shock is the subgroup of patients with sepsis, which presents as vasopressor dependence, an elevated blood lactate concentration and is associated with a mortality of at least 30%. Expression of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 1 (TREM-1) pathway, measured using a serum biomarker of pathway activation (soluble TREM-1, sTREM-1) has been associated with outcome in septic shock. Preclinical and early phase patient data suggest that therapeutic modulation of this pathway may improve survival. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of Nangibotide in Patients with Septic Shock is a phase IIb randomised controlled trial that will take place in up to 50 centres in seven countries and recruit 450 patients with septic shock to receive either placebo or one of two doses of nangibotide, a novel regulator of the TREM-1 pathway. The primary outcome will be the impact of nangibotide therapy on the change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score from a baseline determined before initiation of study drug therapy. This will be assessed first in the patients with an elevated sTREM-1 level and then in the study population as a whole. In addition to safety, secondary outcomes of the study will include efficacy of nangibotide in relation to sTREM-1 levels in terms of organ function, mortality and long-term morbidity. This study will also facilitate the development of a novel platform for the measurement of sTREM-1 at the point of care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the responsible ethics committees/institutional review boards in all study countries: Belgium: Universitair Ziekenhuis Antwerpen, France: CPP Ile de France II, Denmark: Region Hovedstaden, Spain: ethics committee from Valld'Hebron Hospital, Barcelona, Finland: Tukija, Ireland: St. James' Hospital (SJH) / Tallaght University Hospital (TUH) Joint Research Ethics Committee, USA: Lifespan, Providence TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT Number: 2018-004827-36 and NCT04055909

Rubus idaeus extract improves symptoms in knee osteoarthritis patients: results from a phase II double-blind randomized controlled trial.

peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most frequent cause of disability in elderly people. In daily practice, the main objective of the physician is to reduce patient symptoms using treatments without adverse effects. However, the most prescribed treatment to manage OA symptoms remains nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs which are associated with severe adverse effects. Therefore, we need a safe alternative to managing OA. One candidate is Rubus idaeus leaf extracts known to inhibit inflammatory responses. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a 12-weeks intervention with an ethanolic extract from Rubus idaeus leaf on symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. METHOD: The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, monocentric trial of 198 participants with femorotibial osteoarthritis. Participants were randomized equally to receive one daily during 3 months either 1 capsule of Rubus idaeus leaf extract 400 mg, 1 capsule of Rubus idaeus leaf extract 200 mg, or 1 capsule of placebo. The participants were assessed at baseline and after one and three months of treatment. The primary endpoint was an absolute change of the Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) pain subscale. The secondary endpoints were WOMAC global score, stiffness and function sub-scales, knee pain VAS score at walking, the Short Form (SF)-36, the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), the 20-m walk test, and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responders rate. Statistical analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: In the Intention-to-treat population, WOMAC pain was not significantly modified by Rubus idaeus leaf extract compared to placebo. In contrast, Rubus idaeus leaf extract 400 mg after 12 weeks of treatment significantly reduced pain measured by the VAS. The mean pain decrease induced by Rubus ideaus leaf extract was over -7 mm which is clinically relevant and reached a clinically statistical difference compared to placebo with the highest dose. Rubus Ideaus was not significantly more efficient than the placebo on WOMAC global score, stiffness, and physical function subscores, IPAQ, SF-36, walking distance in treadmill test, SPPB, and evaluation of associated treatments needed to manage OA. CONCLUSION: Rubus idaeus leaf extract was well tolerated and effective to relieve pain in a patient with knee osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03703024  (11/10/2018)

Comparative effectiveness of bimekizumab and secukinumab in patients with psoriatic arthritis at 52 weeks using a matching-adjusted indirect comparison

Introduction: Matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAICs) were used to compare the efficacy of bimekizumab and secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg at 52 weeks for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients who were biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug-naı¨ve (bDMARD-naı¨ve) or with previous inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR). Methods: Relevant trials were systematically identified. Individual patient data from bimekizumab randomized controlled trials, BE OPTIMAL (N = 431) and BE COMPLETE (N = 267), were matched to aggregate data from bDMARDnaı¨ve and TNFi-IR patient subgroups from FUTURE 2 using secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg doses (bDMARD-naı¨ve: N = 63/37; TNFiIR:N = 67/33). To adjust for cross-trial differences, patients from the bimekizumab trials were reweighted using propensity scores to match the baseline characteristics of patients in the secukinumab trials. Unanchored comparisons of recalculated bimekizumab and secukinumab 52-week non-responder imputation outcomes for 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20/50/70) and minimal disease activity (MDA) index were analyzed. Results: In patients who were bDMARD-naı¨ve, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of ACR70 response than secukinumab 150 mg (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.39 [1.26, 4.53]; p = 0.008) and secukinumab 300 mg (2.03 [1.11, 3.72]; p = 0.021) at 52 weeks. In patients who were TNFi-IR, bimekizumab had a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 150 mg for ACR20 (3.50 [1.64–7.49]; p = 0.001), ACR50 (3.32 [1.41, 7.80]; p = 0.006), ACR70 (2.95 [1.08, 8.07]; p = 0.035) and MDA (3.52 [1.38, 8.99]; p = 0.009), and a greater likelihood of response compared to secukinumab 300 mg for ACR50 (2.44 [1.06, 5.65]; p = 0.037) and MDA (2.92 [1.20, 7.09]; p = 0.018) at 52 weeks. Conclusion: In this MAIC analysis, the efficacy of bimekizumab, as demonstrated by the likelihood of ACR20/50/70 and MDA response at 52 weeks, was greater or comparable to secukinumab 150 mg and 300 mg for patients with PsA who were bDMARD-naive and TNFi-IR

Bayesian sample size determination in non-sequential clinical trials: statistical aspects and some regulatory considerations?

International audienceThe most common Bayesian methods for sample size determination (SSD) are reviewed in the non-sequential context of a confirmatory phase III trial in drug development. After recalling the regulatory viewpoint on SSD, we discuss the relevance of the various priors applied to the planning of clinical trials. We then investigate whether these Bayesian methods could compete with the usual frequentist approach to SSD and be considered as acceptable from a regulatory viewpoint

Efficacy and safety of imeglimin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: A 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging phase 2b trial

International audienceAIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of imeglimin monotherapy compared to placebo for 24 weeks in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this 24-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, dose ranging, phase 2b clinical trial, Japanese adults (age ? 20 years) with T2DM either treatment-na�ve or previously treated with one oral anti-diabetes agent were eligible for participation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to receive orally imeglimin 500 mg or imeglimin 1000 mg or imeglimin 1500 mg, or placebo twice daily over a 24-week period. The primary endpoint was the placebo-adjusted change at week 24 in HbA1c. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients that received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered at JAPIC (JapicCTI-153086).RESULTS: A total of 299 patients were randomized to receive double-blind treatment with orally twice-daily placebo (n= 75), imeglimin 500 mg (n=75), 1000 mg (n=74) or 1500 mg (n=75). At week 24, imeglimin significantly decreased HbA1c (difference vs placebo: imeglimin 500 mg -0.52% (95% CI: -0.77, -0.27), imeglimin 1000 mg -0.94% (95% CI: -1.19, -0.68), imeglimin 1500 mg -1.00% (95% CI: -1.26, -0.75) (p < 0.0001 for all). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were reported for 68.0%, 62.2%, 73.3% and 68.0% of patients receiving imeglimin 500 mg, imeglimin 1000 mg, imeglimin 1500 mg and placebo, respectively. A small increase in gastrointestinal adverse effects (e.g. diarrhea) occurred with the 1500 mg dose level. Hypoglycemia was balanced between groups.CONCLUSIONS: Imeglimin as monotherapy in Japanese patients with T2DM was well tolerated and significantly improved glycemic control with no significant increase in hypoglycemic events versus placebo. Given the marginal increase in efficacy with the 1500 mg vs. 1000 mg dose (along with the potential for gastrointestinal tolerability issues), a dose of 1000 mg BID was selected for subsequent Phase III studies

Efficacy, safety and patient reported outcomes in patients with active relapsing multiple sclerosis treated with ocrelizumab: Final results from the PRO-MSACTIVE study

International audienceBackground: Ocrelizumab, a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, has been approved in Europe for the treatment of adult patients with active relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) and primary progressive multiple sclerosis (PPMS), on the basis of previous phase III studies. However, limited data were available on ocrelizumab efficacy in RMS according to the Lublin definition of activity (clinical and/or imaging features) used in the current drug label. The PRO-MSACTIVE study was thus designed to provide additional data on ocrelizumab efficacy according to this definition, and also on safety and patient reported outcomes (PROs).Methods: PRO-MSACTIVE is a national, multicenter, open-label, single-arm phase IV French study, conducted in patients with active RMS (relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, RRMS, or secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, SPMS). The primary endpoint, which was assessed at week (W) 48, was defined as the proportion of patients free of disease activity (defined by no relapses and no T1 gadolinium-enhancing nor new and/or enlarging T2 lesions using brain MRI). Disease activity, disability and PROs using 6 questionnaires for disease severity, quality of life, impact on work productivity, and treatment satisfaction were described at W24 and W48. Adverse events were described until W72.Results: Among the 422 analyzed patients (RRMS: 376, SPMS: 46), 63.3% (95% CI [58.5%; 67.9%]) were free of disease activity at W48 (RRMS: 62.2% [57.1%; 67.2%], SPMS: 71.7% [56.5%; 84.0%]). A total of 358 patients (84.8%; RRMS: 84.6%, SPMS: 87.0%) were relapse-free up to W48, and the overall adjusted annualized relapse rate was 0.14 (RRMS: 0.15, SPMS: 0.09). Overall, 67.8% of patients (RRMS: 66.8%, SPMS: 76.1%) had no evidence of MRI activity (no T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions [83.4%] and no new/enlarging T2 lesions [75.1%]); 58.5% of patients (RRMS: 57.7%, SPMS: 65.2%) achieved No Evidence of Disease Activity (NEDA: no relapses, no confirmed disability progression, and no MRI activity) at W48. All PRO scores were stable between the first dose of ocrelizumab and W48 and better outcomes were seen for patients having an EDSS score ≥4. Overall, 89.3% of patients reported adverse events, 62.3% adverse events assessed as related to ocrelizumab, and 8.5% serious adverse events. No serious infusion-related reactions, opportunistic infections, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, nor deaths were reported. No new safety signal was identified.Conclusion: These data confirm the efficacy of ocrelizumab in a pragmatic setting and its favorable benefit-risk profile in patients with RMS. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03589105; EudraCT identifier: 2018-000780-91)