BIBN 4096 BS ([R-(R*,S*)]-N-[2-[[5-amino-1-[[4-(4-pyridinyl)-1-piperazinyl]carbonyl]pentyl]amino]-1-[(3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxyphenyl)methyl]-2-oxoethyl]-4-(1,4-dihydro-2-oxo-3(2H)-quinazolinyl)-,1-piperidinecarboxamide) is the first selective, highly potent, small molecule, nonpeptide calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, which has been developed for the treatment of acute migraine. The objective of this study was to obtain information on the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of BIBN 4096 BS following single intravenous administration of rising doses (0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2.5, 5 and 10 mg) in 55 healthy male and female volunteers. The study was of single-centre, double-blind (within dose levels), placebo-controlled, randomized, single rising dose design. Blood pressure, pulse rate, respiratory rate, ECG, laboratory tests and forearm blood flow did not reveal any clinically relevant, drug-induced changes. Sixteen adverse events (AEs) were reported by eight of 41 volunteers after BIBN 4096 BS compared to five AEs reported by four of 14 volunteers after placebo. Approximately two-thirds of all AEs related to active treatment occurred at the highest dose of 10 mg. At this dose level, all AEs were confined to the three BIBN 4096 BS-treated females, and consisted mainly of transient and mild paresthesias. Paresthesias were the single most frequent AE, whereas fatigue was the AE which occurred in the highest number of subjects. Only two AEs were of moderate intensity, all remaining AEs were of mild intensity. No serious AEs were reported. The local tolerability after intravenous administration was good. In summary, intravenously administered BIBN 4096 BS revealed a very favourable safety profile over the dose range tested in both genders. Generally well tolerated at all dose levels, it was of satisfactory tolerability in female subjects at the highest dose of 10 mg. The plasma concentration-time courses of BIBN 4096 BS showed multicompartmental disposition characteristics. Mean maximum concentration (Cmax) values appeared to be dose-proportional. Based on the results from the two high dose levels (5 and 10 mg) with sufficient individual subject data, BIBN 4096 BS exhibited a total plasma clearance (CL) of approximately 12 l/h and an apparent volume of distribution at steady state (Vss) of approximately 20 l, resulting in a terminal half-life (t1/2) of approximately 2.5 h. Inter-individual variability was moderate with a coefficient of variation of approximately 45% based on the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) values. The mean renal clearance (CLR) was approximately 2 l/h, suggesting that renal excretion plays only a minor role in the elimination of unchanged BIBN 4096 BS.

Nintedanib administered at 200 mg twice daily was not associated with clinically relevant QT prolongation.

Aims/hypothesis Type 2 diabetes, particularly with concomitant CVD, is associated with an increased risk of cognitive impairment. We assessed the effect on accelerated cognitive decline (ACD) of the DPP-4 inhibitor linagliptin vs the sulfonylurea glimepiride in individuals with type 2 diabetes. Methods The CAROLINA-COGNITION study was part of the randomised, double-blind, active-controlled CAROLINA trial that evaluated the cardiovascular safety of linagliptin vs glimepiride in individuals with age ≥40 and ≤85 years and HbA1c 48–69 mmol/mol (6.5–8.5%) receiving standard care, excluding insulin therapy. Participants were randomised 1:1 using an interactive telephone- and web-based system and treatment assignment was determined by a computer-generated random sequence with stratification by center. The primary cognitive outcome was occurrence of ACD at end of follow-up, defined as a regression-based index score ≤16th percentile on either the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) or a composite measure of attention and executive functioning, in participants with a baseline MMSE score ≥24. Prespecified additional analyses included effects on ACD at week 160, in subgroups (sex, age, race, ethnicity, depressive symptoms, cardiovascular risk, duration of type 2 diabetes, albuminuria), and absolute changes in cognitive performance. Participants, caregivers, and people involved in measurements, examinations or adjudication, were all masked to treatment assignment. Results Of 6033 participants recruited from hospital and primary care sites, 3163 (38.0% female, mean age/diabetes duration 64/7.6 years, MMSE score 28.5, HbA1c 54 mmol/mol [7.1%]) represent the CAROLINA-COGNITION cohort. Over median 6.1 years, ACD occurred in 27.8% (449/1618, linagliptin) vs 27.6% (426/1545, glimepiride), OR 1.01 (95% CI 0.86, 1.18). Also, no differences in ACD were observed at week 160 (OR 1.07 [0.91, 1.25]), between treatments across subgroups, or for absolute cognitive changes. Conclusions/interpretation In a large, international outcome trial in people with relatively early type 2 diabetes at elevated cardiovascular risk, no difference in risk for ACD was observed between linagliptin and glimepiride over 6.1 years. Funding This study was sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01243424. Graphical abstract

This study determined if meloxicam, a selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor, interferes with the antiplatelet effect of aspirin using platelet aggregation and thromboxane (Tx) B(2) endpoints in healthy volunteers. Eight male and 8 female volunteers participated in this open-label, randomized, two-treatment, two-way crossover trial. Treatment 1 was meloxicam (15 mg qd) over 4 days, and then aspirin (100 mg qd) was ingested 2 hours after meloxicam for an additional 7 days. Blood samples were taken 2, 6, and 24 hours after the last dose. Treatment 2 consisted of only aspirin (100 mg) over 2 days. Samples were taken at the same time points. Each subject received both treatments with a 2-week washout between the treatment periods. Treatments were safe and well tolerated. The initial 4-day treatment with meloxicam had no effect on platelet aggregation but reduced serum TxB(2) by 64% +/- 19%. Addition of aspirin (100 mg qd) for 7 days resulted in complete inhibition of aggregation and TxB(2) for 24 hours. Two-day treatment with only 100 mg aspirin also resulted in complete inhibition of platelet aggregation and TxB(2). These results indicate that meloxicam does not affect the ability of aspirin to inhibit COX-1 in platelets, thereby allowing aspirin to effectively prevent platelet aggregation and reduce TxB(2) levels, and that meloxicam is selective for COX-2.

Background: Published in 2019, a new addendum to the ICH E9 guideline presents the estimand framework as a systematic approach to ensure alignment among clinical trial objectives, trial execution/conduct, statistical analyses, and interpretation of results. The use of the estimand framework for describing clinical trial objectives has yet to be extensively considered in the context of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We discuss the application of the estimand framework to PRO objectives when designing clinical trials in the future, with a focus on PRO outcomes in oncology trial settings as our example. Main: We describe the components of an estimand and take a naïve PRO trial objective to illustrate how to apply attributes described in the estimand framework to inform construction of a detailed clinical trial objective and its related estimand. We discuss identifying potential post-randomization events that alter the interpretation of the endpoint or render its observation impossible (also defined as intercurrent events) in the context of PRO endpoints, and the implications of how to handle intercurrent events in the construction of the PRO objective. Using a simple objective statement, "What is the effect of treatment X on patient's quality of life?", we build up an example estimand statement and also use a previously published phase III oncology clinical trial to illustrate how an estimand for a PRO objective could have been written to align to the estimate framework. Conclusion: The use of the estimand framework, as described in the new ICH E9 (R1) addendum guideline will become a key common framework for developing clinical trial objectives for evaluating effects of treatment. In the context of considering PROs, the framework provides an opportunity to more precisely specify and build the rationale for patient-focused objectives. This will help to ensure that clinical trials used for registration are designed and analysed appropriately, enabling all stakeholders to accurately interpret conclusions about the treatment effects for patient-focused outcomes.