MedElevator
Войти в исследования Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2023
Efficacy and Safety of Lenabasum, a Cannabinoid Type 2 Receptor Agonist, in a Phase 3 Randomized Trial in Diffuse Cutaneous Systemic Sclerosis.
Рандомизированное исследованиеКлиническое исследование III фазыСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Spiera Robert, Kuwana Masataka, Khanna Dinesh, Hummers Laura, Frech Tracy M, Stevens Wendy, Matucci-Cerinic Marco, Kafaja Suzanne, Distler Oliver, Jun Jae-Bum, Levy Yair, Leszcyzński Piotr, Gordon Jessica, Steen Virginia, Lee Eun Bong, Jankowski Tomasz, Litinsky Irena, Chung Lorina, Hsu Vivien, Mayes Maureen, Sandorfi Nora, Simms Robert W, Finzel Stephanie, de Vries-Bouwstra Jeska, Constantine Scott, Dgetluck Nancy, Dinh Quinn, Bloom Bradley J, Furst Daniel E, White Barbara, Denton Christopher P, RESOLVE-1 Study Group
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This phase 3 study was undertaken to investigate the efficacy and safety of lenabasum, a cannabinoid type 2 receptor agonist, in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc).
METHODS: A multinational double-blind study was conducted in 365 dcSSc patients who were randomized and dosed 1:1:1 with lenabasum 20 mg, lenabasum 5 mg, or placebo, each twice daily and added to background treatments, including immunosuppressive therapies (IST).
RESULTS: The primary end point, the American College of Rheumatology combined response index in dcSSc (CRISS) at week 52 for lenabasum 20 mg twice a day versus placebo, was not met, with CRISS score of 0.888 versus 0.887 (P = 0.4972, using mixed models repeated measures [MMRM]). The change in the modified Rodnan skin thickness score (MRSS) at week 52 for lenabasum 20 mg twice a day versus placebo was -6.7 versus -8.1 (P = 0.1183, using MMRM). Prespecified analyses showed higher CRISS scores, greater improvement in MRSS, and lower decline in forced vital capacity in patients on background mycophenolate and those who were taking IST for ≤1 year. No deaths or excess in serious or severe adverse events related to lenabasum were observed.
CONCLUSION: A benefit of lenabasum in dcSSc was not demonstrated. Most patients were treated with background IST, and treatment with mycophenolate mofetil in particular was associated with better outcomes. These findings support the use of IST in the treatment of dcSSc and highlight the challenge of demonstrating a treatment effect when investigational treatment is added to standard of care IST. These findings have relevance to trial design in SSc, as well as to clinical care.
METHODS: A multinational double-blind study was conducted in 365 dcSSc patients who were randomized and dosed 1:1:1 with lenabasum 20 mg, lenabasum 5 mg, or placebo, each twice daily and added to background treatments, including immunosuppressive therapies (IST).
RESULTS: The primary end point, the American College of Rheumatology combined response index in dcSSc (CRISS) at week 52 for lenabasum 20 mg twice a day versus placebo, was not met, with CRISS score of 0.888 versus 0.887 (P = 0.4972, using mixed models repeated measures [MMRM]). The change in the modified Rodnan skin thickness score (MRSS) at week 52 for lenabasum 20 mg twice a day versus placebo was -6.7 versus -8.1 (P = 0.1183, using MMRM). Prespecified analyses showed higher CRISS scores, greater improvement in MRSS, and lower decline in forced vital capacity in patients on background mycophenolate and those who were taking IST for ≤1 year. No deaths or excess in serious or severe adverse events related to lenabasum were observed.
CONCLUSION: A benefit of lenabasum in dcSSc was not demonstrated. Most patients were treated with background IST, and treatment with mycophenolate mofetil in particular was associated with better outcomes. These findings support the use of IST in the treatment of dcSSc and highlight the challenge of demonstrating a treatment effect when investigational treatment is added to standard of care IST. These findings have relevance to trial design in SSc, as well as to clinical care.