Randomized Controlled Trial of Difelikefalin for Chronic Pruritus in Hemodialysis Patients

INTRODUCTION: There is an unmet medical need for pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease, a distressing complication characterized by generalized and persistent itch affecting 20% to 40% of patients undergoing hemodialysis. Here we report the results of a phase 2 trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a novel peripherally restricted kappa opioid receptor agonist, difelikefalin, in adult patients undergoing hemodialysis with pruritus. METHODS: In this study, 174 hemodialysis patients with moderate-to-severe pruritus were randomly assigned to receive difelikefalin (0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 μg/kg) or placebo intravenously thrice weekly after each hemodialysis session for 8 weeks in a double-blind, controlled trial. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline at week 8 in the weekly mean of the 24-hour Worst Itching Intensity Numerical Rating Scale score. The secondary efficacy endpoint was the change in itch-related quality of life measured by the Skindex-10 questionnaire. Other endpoints included safety, sleep quality, and additional measures including the 5-D itch scale. RESULTS: A significant reduction from baseline in itch intensity scores at week 8 favored all difelikefalin doses combined versus placebo ( CONCLUSION: In this trial, difelikefalin effectively reduced itching intensity and improved sleep and itch-related quality of life

A Phase 2 Study of Oral Difelikefalin in Subjects With Chronic Kidney Disease and Moderate-to-Severe Pruritus

/Background: Chronic pruritus is burdensome for chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. We evaluated difelikefalin efficacy and safety in reducing itch in subjects with non-dialysis-dependent (NDD)-CKD and those undergoing hemodialysis (HD). This phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study enrolled NDD-CKD (stage 3-5) and HD subjects with moderate-to-severe pruritus. Subjects were equally randomized to oral difelikefalin (0.25, 0.5, 1.0 mg) or placebo once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in weekly mean Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) score at week 12. 269 subjects were randomized (mean [SD] baseline WI-NRS: 7.1 [1.2]). Difelikefalin 1.0 mg significantly reduced weekly mean WI-NRS scores versus placebo at week 12 (P=0.018), with numerical reductions observed with difelikefalin 0.25 and 0.5 mg. At week 12, 38.6% of subjects receiving difelikefalin 1.0 mg achieved complete response (WI-NRS 0-1) versus 14.4% receiving placebo. Difelikefalin resulted in ∼20% improvement in itch-related quality-of-life measures. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were dizziness, fall, constipation, diarrhea, gastroesophageal reflux disease, fatigue, hyperkalemia, hypertension, and urinary tract infection. Study duration was 12 weeks. Oral difelikefalin significantly reduced itch intensity in stage 3‒5 CKD subjects with moderate-to-severe pruritus, supporting continued development for this condition

The Burden of Pruritus Associated With CKD: A Mixed Methods Analysis Among Patients Undergoing Dialysis

Rationale & Objective: Despite its prevalence and distress to patients, chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus (CKD-aP) is poorly characterized, which may contribute to the condition’s underdiagnosis and inadequate management. This study aimed to understand the symptom experience of patients with CKD-aP and the extent to which pruritus impacts their lives. Study Design: Mixed methods study including one-on-one qualitative interviews and completion of the Skindex-10 Questionnaire (measuring itch-related quality of life). Setting & Participants: A total of 23 patients undergoing hemodialysis and reporting pruritus at 4 dialysis centers in the United States. Analytical Approach: Interviews followed a semistructured guide that included targeted and follow-up questions to elicit discussion of patients’ symptoms of pruritus, including frequency and variability, impact on activities of daily living, and emotional and social functioning. Interviews were digitally audio-recorded. A coding dictionary was developed from transcripts to analyze themes and concepts. Results: Participants described their itch with various terms, including “numbness,” “pain,” and “tingling” on their skin. Itch affected multiple areas but especially the back, usually occurred daily, and was often worse at night. For some, itching was a constant experience. Patients relieved their itch through scratching and various off-label treatments; some reported skin damage from excessive scratching and most indicated treatments provided limited relief. Pruritus considerably disrupted physical function, including sleep, daily activities, social functioning and relationships, and emotional and psychological wellbeing. All participants reported being bothered by their itching during the past week on the Skindex-10 Questionnaire. Limitations: All participants were from the United States, so the findings may not be generalizable to other countries. Conclusions: Although symptom experience varies considerably, CKD-aP causes severe distress for many patients undergoing hemodialysis and can profoundly impair their quality of life. The results of this study show the impact of itch from patients’ perspectives and highlight the need for greater awareness and better management of this condition. Plain-Language Summary: Patients with chronic kidney disease often experience itching, or pruritus, but its importance to patients is regularly overlooked. This study used one-on-one interviews to investigate patients’ experiences of chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus and how it impacts their lives. We found that participants experienced itch on various body areas and used different words to describe their itch (eg, “numbness” and “pain”). Some reported skin damage from excessive scratching, and many used off-label treatments and other interventions (eg, rubbing alcohol and multiple showers daily), which provided limited relief. For many, itching was experienced daily and severely disrupted sleep, daily activities, interactions with others, and mental wellbeing. These findings reveal chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus severely impacts patients and highlights the need for improved management of this condition

Considerations for improving assay sensitivity in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations

A number of pharmacologic treatments examined in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to show statistically significant superiority to placebo in conditions in which their efficacy had previously been demonstrated. Assuming the validity of previous evidence of efficacy and the comparability of the patients and outcome measures in these studies, such results may be a consequence of limitations in the ability of these RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of efficacious analgesic treatments vs placebo (“assay sensitivity”). Efforts to improve the assay sensitivity of analgesic trials could reduce the rate of falsely negative trials of efficacious medications and improve the efficiency of analgesic drug development. Therefore, an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting was convened in which the assay sensitivity of chronic pain trials was reviewed and discussed. On the basis of this meeting and subsequent discussions, the authors recommend consideration of a number of patient, study design, study site, and outcome measurement factors that have the potential to affect the assay sensitivity of RCTs of chronic pain treatments. Increased attention to and research on methodological aspects of clinical trials and their relationships with assay sensitivity have the potential to provide the foundation for an evidence-based approach to the design of analgesic clinical trials and expedite the identification of analgesic treatments with improved efficacy and safety

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18-55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493-1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96-317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360-792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen

Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019 : a systematic analysis

Background Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses a major threat to human health around the world. Previous publications have estimated the effect of AMR on incidence, deaths, hospital length of stay, and health-care costs for specific pathogen–drug combinations in select locations. To our knowledge, this study presents the most comprehensive estimates of AMR burden to date. Methods We estimated deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to and associated with bacterial AMR for 23 pathogens and 88 pathogen–drug combinations in 204 countries and territories in 2019. We obtained data from systematic literature reviews, hospital systems, surveillance systems, and other sources, covering 471 million individual records or isolates and 7585 study-location-years. We used predictive statistical modelling to produce estimates of AMR burden for all locations, including for locations with no data. Our approach can be divided into five broad components: number of deaths where infection played a role, proportion of infectious deaths attributable to a given infectious syndrome, proportion of infectious syndrome deaths attributable to a given pathogen, the percentage of a given pathogen resistant to an antibiotic of interest, and the excess risk of death or duration of an infection associated with this resistance. Using these components, we estimated disease burden based on two counterfactuals: deaths attributable to AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drug-resistant infections were replaced by drug-susceptible infections), and deaths associated with AMR (based on an alternative scenario in which all drug-resistant infections were replaced by no infection). We generated 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs) for final estimates as the 25th and 975th ordered values across 1000 posterior draws, and models were cross-validated for out-of-sample predictive validity. We present final estimates aggregated to the global and regional level. Findings On the basis of our predictive statistical models, there were an estimated 4·95 million (3·62–6·57) deaths associated with bacterial AMR in 2019, including 1·27 million (95% UI 0·911–1·71) deaths attributable to bacterial AMR. At the regional level, we estimated the all-age death rate attributable to resistance to be highest in western sub-Saharan Africa, at 27·3 deaths per 100 000 (20·9–35·3), and lowest in Australasia, at 6·5 deaths (4·3–9·4) per 100 000. Lower respiratory infections accounted for more than 1·5 million deaths associated with resistance in 2019, making it the most burdensome infectious syndrome. The six leading pathogens for deaths associated with resistance (Escherichia coli, followed by Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were responsible for 929 000 (660 000–1 270 000) deaths attributable to AMR and 3·57 million (2·62–4·78) deaths associated with AMR in 2019. One pathogen–drug combination, meticillin-resistant S aureus, caused more than 100 000 deaths attributable to AMR in 2019, while six more each caused 50 000–100 000 deaths: multidrug-resistant excluding extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, third-generation cephalosporin-resistant E coli, carbapenem-resistant A baumannii, fluoroquinolone-resistant E coli, carbapenem-resistant K pneumoniae, and third-generation cephalosporin-resistant K pneumoniae. Interpretation To our knowledge, this study provides the first comprehensive assessment of the global burden of AMR, as well as an evaluation of the availability of data. AMR is a leading cause of death around the world, with the highest burdens in low-resource settings. Understanding the burden of AMR and the leading pathogen–drug combinations contributing to it is crucial to making informed and location-specific policy decisions, particularly about infection prevention and control programmes, access to essential antibiotics, and research and development of new vaccines and antibiotics. There are serious data gaps in many low-income settings, emphasising the need to expand microbiology laboratory capacity and data collection systems to improve our understanding of this important human health threat.Peer Reviewe