No abstract

Background/Aims: Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) may play an important role in the neuropathology of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The efficacy and safety of celecoxib (200 mg bid), a COX-2 selective inhibitor, were assessed in patients ≧50 years with established mild-to-moderate AD to determine whether treatment was effective in retarding deterioration of cognitive function. Methods: This was a 52-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. The primary efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 52 in the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Behavior (ADAS-cog) composite score and the week 52 Clinician’s Interview-Based Impression of Change Plus (CIBIC+). Results: At 52 weeks, change in ADAS-cog scores from baseline was similar for placebo and celecoxib 200 mg bid groups (5.00 and 4.39, respectively). CIBIC+ scores were also similar (4.83 and 4.92). Two extension studies were conducted but were terminated early based on these efficacy results. Safety data from all 3 studies indicated that celecoxib was generally well-tolerated. Conclusion: Celecoxib 200 mg bid did not slow the progression of AD in this study, and the occurrence of adverse events was as expected for an elderly population with a complex chronic medical condition.

BackgroundGiven increasing rates of resistance to existing therapy, new options for treatment and prophylaxis of malaria are needed.MethodsTwo randomised, comparative, non-inferiority studies were conducted in Africa, one double-blinded and one open-label. Adults with fever, a positive peripheral blood smear, and a positive rapid diagnostic test for Plasmodium falciparum were randomised in both studies to either azithromycin (AZ) 1,000 mg plus chloroquine (CQ) 600-mg base (AZCQ 1,000 mg) once daily for three days or mefloquine hydrochloride (MQ) 1,250 mg (split dose). In the first study, an additional regimen of AZ 500 mg plus CQ 600-mg base (AZCQ 500 mg) once daily for three days was included. All study participants were hospitalised until three consecutive daily blood smears were negative for asexual P. falciparum parasitaemia. Study participants were evaluated weekly for 42 days, with Day 28 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected parasitological clearance rate as primary endpoint.ResultsA total of 467 subjects were randomised in the two studies. At 28 days’ follow-up, PCR-corrected parasitological clearance rates in the per protocol population in the first study were 101/103 (98%) with AZCQ 1,000 mg compared with 102/103 (99%) with MQ (95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.2, 3.3). The AZCQ 500-mg regimen was stopped during an interim study review (six [86%] clearance of seven evaluable; two lost to follow-up). In the second study, clearance rates were similar: AZCQ 1,000 mg 107/107 (100%) vs MQ 111/112 (99%; 95% CI: -1.8, 3.6). Among the participating countries, in vitro CQ resistance based on pfcrt mutation frequency in the baseline isolates across both studies ranged from 20.8% (Zambia) to 96.1% (Uganda). Serious adverse events (AEs; all causality) were observed more frequently with MQ compared with AZCQ (four vs one, respectively), though discontinuations for AEs were similar (four vs three, respectively). Common AEs in the AZ-containing arms included pruritus, vomiting, dizziness, and headache.ConclusionsAmong adults with symptomatic uncomplicated falciparum malaria in Africa, the combination of AZ 1,000 mg and CQ 600-mg base once daily for three days resulted in Day 28 PCR-corrected parasitological clearance rates of ≥98% and was non-inferior to treatment with MQ. AZCQ was well tolerated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00082576 and NCT00367653Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1475-2875-13-458) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe World Health Organization recommends intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy (IPTp) with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) in African regions with moderate to high malaria transmission. However, growing resistance to SP threatens the effectiveness of IPTp-SP, and alternative drugs are needed. This study tested the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of a fixed-dose combination azithromycin-chloroquine (AZCQ; 250 mg AZ/155 mg CQ base) for IPTp relative to IPTp-SP.Methods and FindingsA randomized, Phase 3, open-label, multi-center study was conducted in sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Kenya, Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda) between October 2010 and November 2013. Pregnant women received 3 IPTp courses with AZCQ (each course: 1,000/620 mg AZCQ QD for 3 days) or SP (each course 1,500/75 mg SP QD for 1 day) at 4- to 8-week intervals during the second and third trimester. Long-lasting insecticide-treated bednets were also provided at enrollment. Study participants were followed up until day 28 post delivery (time window: day 28–42). The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with sub-optimal pregnancy outcomes (a composite endpoint comprising live-borne neonates with low birth weight [LBW, <2,500 g], premature birth [<37 weeks], still birth [>28 weeks], abortion [≤28 weeks], lost to follow-up prior to observation of pregnancy outcome, or missing birth weight). The study was terminated early after recruitment of 2,891 of the planned 5,044 participants, due to futility observed in a pre-specified 35% interim analysis. In the final intent-to-treat dataset, 378/1,445 (26.2%) participants in the AZCQ and 342/1,445 (23.7%) in the SP group had sub-optimal pregnancy outcomes, with an estimated risk ratio (RR) of 1.11 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.25; p = 0.12). There was no significant difference in the incidence of LBW between treatment groups (57/1138 [5.0%] in the AZCQ group, 68/1188 [5.7%] in the SP group, RR 0.87 [95% CI: 0.62, 1.23]; p = 0.44). IPTp-AZCQ was less well-tolerated in mothers than IPTp-SP. Occurrences of congenital anomalies, deaths, and serious adverse events were comparable in neonates for both groups. Limitations included the open-label design and early study termination.ConclusionsIPTp-AZCQ was not superior to IPTp-SP in this study and alternatives for IPTp-SP remain to be identified. The proportions of sub-optimal pregnancy outcomes and LBW were lower than expected, which may be linked to insecticide-treated bednet use throughout the study. Reduced incidences of symptomatic malaria infection and peripheral parasitemia in the AZCQ group relative to SP suggest that AZCQ warrants further investigation as an alternative treatment of uncomplicated malaria.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01103063).

Background Biosimilars are highly similar to the licensed biologic ("reference product"), with no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, or potency between the two products. Objective This comparative 52-week clinical study evaluated the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of PF-05280586 (Ruxience™ [a rituximab biosimilar]) versus rituximab reference product sourced from the EU (MabThera ® ; rituximab-EU). Patients and Methods Subjects with CD20-positive, low-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma (LTB-FL) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1 were randomized (1:1) to PF-05280586 or rituximab-EU (375 mg/m 2 intravenously [once weekly for 4 weeks at days 1, 8, 15, and 22]), stratified using the Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index 2 classification. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) at week 26 (percentage of subjects achieving complete response [CR] or partial response [PR]). Therapeutic equivalence was concluded if the two-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in ORR between groups was within the prespecified margin (± 16%). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), CR rate, safety, immunogenicity, PK, and PD. Results A total of 394 subjects were randomized: PF-05280586 (n = 196) or rituximab-EU (n = 198). ORR at week 26 was 75.5% (PF-05280586) versus 70.7% (rituximab-EU), for a difference of 4.66%; 95% CI (− 4.16 to 13.47), which was entirely within the prespecified equivalence margin. Rates of CR were 29.3% (PF-05280586) versus 31.0% (rituximab-EU). Estimated 1-year PFS rates were 78.2% (95% CI 70.2-84.2) and 83.0% (95% CI 75.0-88.6) for PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU, respectively. Safety, immunogenicity, and mean serum concentrations were similar between groups. Conclusions The efficacy, safety, immunogenicity, PK, and PD of PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU were similar up to week 52 in subjects with previously untreated CD20-positive LTB-FL. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02213263 and EudraCT (2014-000132-41).