一项4期、多中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照的研究结果表明,储存库促肾上腺皮质激素注射液治疗肺结节病。

IF 2.3 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Mehdi Mirsaeidi, Robert P Baughman, Debasis Sahoo, Eva Tarau
{"title":"一项4期、多中心、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照的研究结果表明,储存库促肾上腺皮质激素注射液治疗肺结节病。","authors":"Mehdi Mirsaeidi,&nbsp;Robert P Baughman,&nbsp;Debasis Sahoo,&nbsp;Eva Tarau","doi":"10.1007/s41030-023-00222-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Long-term treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis with glucocorticoids has been associated with toxicity and other adverse events, highlighting the need for alternative therapies. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar<sup>®</sup> Gel) in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis and to validate endpoints for use in future clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, subjects received subcutaneous RCI (80 U) twice weekly or matching placebo through 24 weeks in a double-blind treatment phase, followed by an optional 24-week open-label extension. Efficacy was measured by glucocorticoid tapering, pulmonary function tests, chest imaging, patient-reported outcomes, and a novel sarcoidosis treatment score (STS). Safety was assessed by adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, clinical laboratory abnormalities, and imaging. The study was terminated early due to low enrollment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby precluding statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-five subjects were randomized to receive either RCI (n = 27) or placebo (n = 28). Mean STS at week 24 showed greater improvement with RCI (1.4) compared with placebo (0.7). At week 48, those who remained on RCI had an STS of 1.8 compared with 0.9 in those who switched from placebo to RCI. More subjects in the RCI group discontinued glucocorticoids at week 24 compared to the placebo group. Glucocorticoid discontinuation was comparable at week 48 for those who switched from placebo to RCI and those who continued RCI. Similar trends in favor of RCI over placebo were observed with the other efficacy endpoints. No new or unexpected safety signals were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RCI was safe and well tolerated, with trends in efficacy data suggesting greater improvement with RCI compared to placebo in patients receiving standard-of-care therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis. The study also provided validation of efficacy endpoints that may be used in larger trials for pulmonary sarcoidosis.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03320070.</p>","PeriodicalId":20919,"journal":{"name":"Pulmonary Therapy","volume":"9 2","pages":"237-253"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/aa/87/41030_2023_Article_222.PMC10113127.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Results From a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis.\",\"authors\":\"Mehdi Mirsaeidi,&nbsp;Robert P Baughman,&nbsp;Debasis Sahoo,&nbsp;Eva Tarau\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s41030-023-00222-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Long-term treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis with glucocorticoids has been associated with toxicity and other adverse events, highlighting the need for alternative therapies. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar<sup>®</sup> Gel) in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis and to validate endpoints for use in future clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, subjects received subcutaneous RCI (80 U) twice weekly or matching placebo through 24 weeks in a double-blind treatment phase, followed by an optional 24-week open-label extension. Efficacy was measured by glucocorticoid tapering, pulmonary function tests, chest imaging, patient-reported outcomes, and a novel sarcoidosis treatment score (STS). Safety was assessed by adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, clinical laboratory abnormalities, and imaging. The study was terminated early due to low enrollment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby precluding statistical analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-five subjects were randomized to receive either RCI (n = 27) or placebo (n = 28). Mean STS at week 24 showed greater improvement with RCI (1.4) compared with placebo (0.7). At week 48, those who remained on RCI had an STS of 1.8 compared with 0.9 in those who switched from placebo to RCI. More subjects in the RCI group discontinued glucocorticoids at week 24 compared to the placebo group. Glucocorticoid discontinuation was comparable at week 48 for those who switched from placebo to RCI and those who continued RCI. Similar trends in favor of RCI over placebo were observed with the other efficacy endpoints. No new or unexpected safety signals were identified.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>RCI was safe and well tolerated, with trends in efficacy data suggesting greater improvement with RCI compared to placebo in patients receiving standard-of-care therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis. The study also provided validation of efficacy endpoints that may be used in larger trials for pulmonary sarcoidosis.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03320070.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20919,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"237-253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/aa/87/41030_2023_Article_222.PMC10113127.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pulmonary Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-023-00222-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pulmonary Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41030-023-00222-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

长期使用糖皮质激素治疗肺结节病与毒性和其他不良事件相关,强调需要替代疗法。本研究的目的是评估储存库促肾上腺皮质激素注射液(RCI, Acthar®凝胶)对肺结节病患者的疗效和安全性,并验证未来临床试验的终点。方法:在这个多中心、随机、安慰剂对照试验中,受试者在双盲治疗阶段接受皮下RCI (80 U),每周两次或匹配安慰剂,持续24周,随后是可选的24周开放标签延长。通过糖皮质激素减量、肺功能检查、胸部影像学、患者报告的结果和新型结节病治疗评分(STS)来衡量疗效。通过不良事件、体格检查、生命体征、临床实验室异常和影像学来评估安全性。由于COVID-19大流行导致入组人数低,因此无法进行统计分析,因此该研究提前终止。结果:55名受试者随机接受RCI (n = 27)或安慰剂(n = 28)。与安慰剂组(0.7)相比,第24周的平均STS与RCI(1.4)相比有更大的改善。在第48周,继续使用RCI的患者STS为1.8,而从安慰剂转为RCI的患者STS为0.9。与安慰剂组相比,RCI组中更多的受试者在第24周停止使用糖皮质激素。在第48周,从安慰剂转为RCI组和继续RCI组的糖皮质激素停药效果相当。在其他疗效终点上也观察到类似倾向于RCI优于安慰剂的趋势。没有发现新的或意外的安全信号。结论:RCI是安全且耐受性良好的,疗效数据趋势表明,在接受肺结节病标准治疗的患者中,与安慰剂相比,RCI有更大的改善。该研究还提供了有效性终点的验证,可用于肺结节病的大型试验。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT03320070。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Results From a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis.

Results From a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis.

Results From a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis.

Results From a Phase 4, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study of Repository Corticotropin Injection for the Treatment of Pulmonary Sarcoidosis.

Introduction: Long-term treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis with glucocorticoids has been associated with toxicity and other adverse events, highlighting the need for alternative therapies. The goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of repository corticotropin injection (RCI, Acthar® Gel) in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis and to validate endpoints for use in future clinical trials.

Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, subjects received subcutaneous RCI (80 U) twice weekly or matching placebo through 24 weeks in a double-blind treatment phase, followed by an optional 24-week open-label extension. Efficacy was measured by glucocorticoid tapering, pulmonary function tests, chest imaging, patient-reported outcomes, and a novel sarcoidosis treatment score (STS). Safety was assessed by adverse events, physical examinations, vital signs, clinical laboratory abnormalities, and imaging. The study was terminated early due to low enrollment caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby precluding statistical analysis.

Results: Fifty-five subjects were randomized to receive either RCI (n = 27) or placebo (n = 28). Mean STS at week 24 showed greater improvement with RCI (1.4) compared with placebo (0.7). At week 48, those who remained on RCI had an STS of 1.8 compared with 0.9 in those who switched from placebo to RCI. More subjects in the RCI group discontinued glucocorticoids at week 24 compared to the placebo group. Glucocorticoid discontinuation was comparable at week 48 for those who switched from placebo to RCI and those who continued RCI. Similar trends in favor of RCI over placebo were observed with the other efficacy endpoints. No new or unexpected safety signals were identified.

Conclusions: RCI was safe and well tolerated, with trends in efficacy data suggesting greater improvement with RCI compared to placebo in patients receiving standard-of-care therapy for pulmonary sarcoidosis. The study also provided validation of efficacy endpoints that may be used in larger trials for pulmonary sarcoidosis.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03320070.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pulmonary Therapy
Pulmonary Therapy Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
24
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Aims and Scope Pulmonary Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed (single-blind), and rapid publication journal. The scope of the journal is broad and will consider all scientifically sound research from pre-clinical, clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the use of pulmonary therapies, devices, and surgical techniques. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to: asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; pulmonary hypertension; cystic fibrosis; lung cancer; respiratory tract disorders; allergic rhinitis and other respiratory allergies; influenza, pneumococcal infection, respiratory syncytial virus and other respiratory infections; and inhalers and other device therapies. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports/series, trial protocols and short communications such as commentaries and editorials. Pulmonary Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of quality research, which may be considered of insufficient interest by other journals. Rapid Publication The journal’s publication timelines aim for a rapid peer review of 2 weeks. If an article is accepted it will be published 3–4 weeks from acceptance. The rapid timelines are achieved through the combination of a dedicated in-house editorial team, who manage article workflow, and an extensive Editorial and Advisory Board who assist with peer review. This allows the journal to support the rapid dissemination of research, whilst still providing robust peer review. Combined with the journal’s open access model this allows for the rapid, efficient communication of the latest research and reviews, fostering the advancement of pulmonary therapies. Open Access All articles published by Pulmonary Therapy are open access. Personal Service The journal’s dedicated in-house editorial team offer a personal “concierge service” meaning authors will always have an editorial contact able to update them on the status of their manuscript. The editorial team check all manuscripts to ensure that articles conform to the most recent COPE, GPP and ICMJE publishing guidelines. This supports the publication of ethically sound and transparent research. Digital Features and Plain Language Summaries Pulmonary Therapy offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by key summary points, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article. The journal also provides the option to include various types of digital features including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations. All additional features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. If you consider that your paper would benefit from the inclusion of a digital feature, please let us know. Our editorial team are able to create high-quality slide decks and infographics in-house, and video abstracts through our partner Research Square, and would be happy to assist in any way we can. For further information about digital features, please contact the journal editor (see ‘Contact the Journal’ for email address), and see the ‘Guidelines for digital features and plain language summaries’ document under ‘Submission guidelines’. For examples of digital features please visit our showcase page https://springerhealthcare.com/expertise/publishing-digital-features/ Publication Fees Upon acceptance of an article, authors will be required to pay the mandatory Rapid Service Fee of €4500/ $5100/ £3650. The journal will consider fee discounts and waivers for developing countries and this is decided on a case by case basis. Peer Review Process Upon submission, manuscripts are assessed by the editorial team to ensure they fit within the aims and scope of the journal and are also checked for plagiarism. All suitable submissions are then subject to a comprehensive single-blind peer review. Reviewers are selected based on their relevant expertise and publication history in the subject area. The journal has an extensive pool of editorial and advisory board members who have been selected to assist with peer review based on the afore-mentioned criteria. At least two extensive reviews are required to make the editorial decision, with the exception of some article types such as Commentaries, Editorials, and Letters which are generally reviewed by one member of the Editorial Board. Where reviewer recommendations are conflicted, the editorial board will be contacted for further advice and a presiding decision. Manuscripts are then either accepted, rejected or authors are required to make major or minor revisions (both reviewer comments and editorial comments may need to be addressed). Once a revised manuscript is re-submitted, it is assessed along with the responses to reviewer comments and if it has been adequately revised it will be accepted for publication. Accepted manuscripts are then copyedited and typeset by the production team before online publication. Appeals against decisions following peer review are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be sent to the journal editor. Preprints We encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration in our journals. Authors should disclose details of preprint posting during the submission process or at any other point during consideration in one of our journals. Once the manuscript is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website. Please follow the link for further information on preprint sharing: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/journal-author/journal-author-helpdesk/submission/1302#c16721550 Copyright Pulmonary Therapy''s content is published open access under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, which allows users to read, copy, distribute, and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited. The author assigns the exclusive right to any commercial use of the article to Springer. For more information about the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License, click here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0. Contact For more information about the journal, including pre-submission enquiries, please contact christopher.vautrinot@springer.com.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信