Randomised, crossover clinical trial, in healthy volunteers, to compare the systemic availability of two topical intranasal budesonide formulations

Background: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. Methods: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mu g budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64 (R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64 (R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90% CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. Results: All the enroled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUCi (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. Conclusion: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market

An adaptive phase II/III safety and efficacy randomized controlled trial of single day or three-day fixed-dose albendazole-ivermectin co-formulation versus albendazole for the treatment of Trichuris trichiura and other STH infections. ALIVE trial protocol

Background: Soil-transmitted helminths (STH) are targeted for control through mass drug-administration campaigns to prevent morbidity affecting at-risk groups in endemic regions. Although broadly successful, the use of albendazole and mebendazole achieved variable progress, with deficiencies against Trichuris trichiura and a predictable low efficacy against Strongyloides stercoralis. Novel drug combinations offer a potential solution, providing they can be delivered safely and maintain efficacy against all STH species. Here we present the protocol of a clinical trial to evaluate a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet containing albendazole and ivermectin that will be compared against albendazole against STH. Methods: An adaptive phase II/III randomized controlled trial will be undertaken in STH endemic sites in Ethiopia, Kenya and Mozambique to evaluate an oral FDC of 400 mg albendazole and either 9- or 18 mg ivermectin. FDC will be administered as a single dose or single doses over three-consecutive days and assessed against a single dose of 400 mg albendazole. In the phase II trial, 126 T. trichiura-infected children weighting 15 to 45 kg will be treated in a dose-escalation manner to determine safety objectives. In the phase III trial, 1097 participants aged 5 to 18 years old infected with T. trichiura, hookworm and S. stercoralis will be recruited to determine safety and efficacy. The trial will be open-label with blinded outcome assessors. Cure rate measured 21-days after-treatment in duplicate Kato-Katz is the primary efficacy outcome. Secondary objectives include efficacy evaluation by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as an outcome measurement, description of pharmacokinetic parameters, palatability and acceptability evaluations, and monitoring of anthelmintic resistance. Conclusions: This trial with registrational goals seeks to evaluate an innovative fixed-dose combination of albendazole and ivermectin co-formulated tablets, with the goal of providing an anthelmintic regimen with improved efficacy and spectrum of coverage against STH. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05124691 (18/11/2021)

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled clinical trial of sublingual immunotherapy in natural rubber latex allergic patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Natural rubber latex allergy is a common and unsolved health problem. Since the avoidance of exposure is very difficult, immunotherapy is strongly recommended, but before its use in patients, it is essential to prove the efficacy and safety of extracts.</p> <p>The aim of the present randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of latex sublingual immunotherapy in adult patients undergoing permanent latex avoidance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Twenty-eight adult latex-allergic patients (5 males and 23 females), with mean age of 39 years (range 24-57) were randomized to receive a commercial latex-sublingual immunotherapy or placebo during one year, followed by another year of open, active therapy. The following outcomes were measured at baseline and at the end of first and second year of follow-up: skin prick test, gloves-use score, conjunctival challenge test, total and specific IgE, basophil activation test, and adverse reactions monitoring.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No significant difference in any of the efficacy <it>in vivo </it>variables was observed between active and placebo groups at the end of the placebo-controlled phase, nor when each group was compared with their baseline values at the end of the two year-study. An improvement in the average percentage of basophils activated was observed. During the induction phase, 4 reactions in the active group and 5 in the placebo group were recorded. During the maintenance phase, two patients dropped out due to pruritus and to acute dermatitis respectively.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Further studies are needed to evaluate latex-sublingual immunotherapy, since efficacy could not be demonstrated in adult patients with avoidance of the allergen.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p><a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12611000543987.aspx">ACTRN12611000543987</a></p

The Expanded mtDNA Phylogeny of the Franco-Cantabrian Region Upholds the Pre-Neolithic Genetic Substrate of Basques

The European genetic landscape has been shaped by several human migrations occurred since Paleolithic times. The accumulation of archaeological records and the concordance of different lines of genetic evidence during the last two decades have triggered an interesting debate concerning the role of ancient settlers from the Franco-Cantabrian region in the postglacial resettlement of Europe. Among the Franco-Cantabrian populations, Basques are regarded as one of the oldest and more intriguing human groups of Europe. Recent data on complete mitochondrial DNA genomes focused on macrohaplogroup R0 revealed that Basques harbor some autochthonous lineages, suggesting a genetic continuity since pre-Neolithic times. However, excluding haplogroup H, the most representative lineage of macrohaplogroup R0, the majority of maternal lineages of this area remains virtually unexplored, so that further refinement of the mtDNA phylogeny based on analyses at the highest level of resolution is crucial for a better understanding of the European prehistory. We thus explored the maternal ancestry of 548 autochthonous individuals from various Franco-Cantabrian populations and sequenced 76 mitogenomes of the most representative lineages. Interestingly, we identified three mtDNA haplogroups, U5b1f, J1c5c1 and V22, that proved to be representative of Franco-Cantabria, notably of the Basque population. The seclusion and diversity of these female genetic lineages support a local origin in the Franco-Cantabrian area during the Mesolithic of southwestern Europe, ∼10,000 years before present (YBP), with signals of expansions at ∼3,500 YBP. These findings provide robust evidence of a partial genetic continuity between contemporary autochthonous populations from the Franco-Cantabrian region, specifically the Basques, and Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups. Furthermore, our results raise the current proportion (≈15%) of the Franco-Cantabrian maternal gene pool with a putative pre-Neolithic origin to ≈35%, further supporting the notion of a predominant Paleolithic genetic substrate in extant European populations

Grupo 3 Investigación traslacional: ¿Cómo podemos lograr en España una mejor integración entre la investigación básica y la clínica?

Group 3 Translational research: How can we ensure a better integration between basic and clinical research in Spain

Randomised, crossover clinical trial, in healthy volunteers, to compare the systemic availability of two topical intranasal budesonide formulations

Abstract Background Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. Methods Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 μg budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64®, Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64®, AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90%CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. Results All the enroled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUCt (2.6 ± 1.5 vs 2.2 ± 0.7), AUCi (2.9 ± 1.5 vs 2.4 ± 0.7), tmax (0.4 ± 0.1 vs 0.4 ± 0.2), Cmax/AUCi (0.3 ± 0.1 vs 0.3 ± 0.0), and MRT (5.0 ± 1.4 vs 4.5 ± 0.6), but not in the case of Cmax (0.9 ± 0.3 vs 0.7 ± 0.2) and t1/2 (3.7 ± 1.8 vs 2.9 ± 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. Conclusion The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market. Trial registration No Eudra CT: 2005-003727-39</p