Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controled clinical trial of sublingual immunotherapy in natural rubber latex allergic patients

Trial registration number: CTRN12611000543987

Radiotherapy plus nimotuzumab or placebo in the treatment of high grade glioma patients: results from a randomized, double blind trial

Background The prognosis of patients bearing high grade glioma remains dismal. Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) is well validated as a primary contributor of glioma initiation and progression. Nimotuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that recognizes the EGFR extracellular domain and reaches Central Nervous System tumors, in nonclinical and clinical setting. While it has similar activity when compared to other anti-EGFR antibodies, it does not induce skin toxicity or hypomagnesemia. Methods A randomized, double blind, multicentric clinical trial was conducted in high grade glioma patients (41 anaplastic astrocytoma and 29 glioblastoma multiforme) that received radiotherapy plus nimotuzumab or placebo. Treatment and placebo groups were well-balanced for the most important prognostic variables. Patients received 6 weekly doses of 200 mg nimotuzumab or placebo together with irradiation as induction therapy. Maintenance treatment was given for 1 year with subsequent doses administered every 3 weeks. The objectives of this study were to assess the comparative overall survival, progression free survival, response rate, immunogenicity and safety. Results The median cumulative dose was 3200 mg of nimotuzumab given over a median number of 16 doses. The combination of nimotuzumab and RT was well-tolerated. The most prevalent related adverse reactions included nausea, fever, tremors, anorexia and hepatic test alteration. No anti-idiotypic response was detected, confirming the antibody low immunogenicity. The mean and median survival time for subjects treated with nimotuzumab was 31.06 and 17.76 vs. 21.07 and 12.63 months for the control group. Conclusions In this randomized trial, nimotuzumab showed an excellent safety profile and significant survival benefit in combination with irradiation.

Randomised, crossover clinical trial, in healthy volunteers, to compare the systemic availability of two topical intranasal budesonide formulations

Background: Budesonide has a long history as intranasal drug, with many marketed products. Efforts should be made to demonstrate the therapeutic equivalence and safety comparability between them. Given that systemic availability significantly varies from formulations, the clinical comparability of diverse products comes to be of clinical interest and a regulatory requirement. The aim of the present study was to compare the systemic availability, pharmacodynamic effect, and safety of two intranasal budesonide formulations for the treatment of rhinitis. Methods: Eighteen healthy volunteers participated in this randomised, controlled, crossover, clinical trial. On two separated days, subjects received a single dose of 512 mu g budesonide (4 puffs per nostril) from each of the assayed devices (Budesonida nasal 64 (R), Aldo-Union, Spain and Rhinocort 64 (R), AstraZeneca, Spain). Budesonide availability was determined by the measurement of budesonide plasma concentration. The pharmacodynamic effect on the hypothalamic-adrenal axis was evaluated as both plasma and urine cortisol levels. Adverse events were tabulated and described. Budesonide availability between formulations was compared by the calculation of 90% CI intervals of the ratios of the main pharmacokinetic parameters describing budesonide bioavailability. Plasma cortisol concentration-time curves were compared by means of a GLM for Repeated Measures. Urine cortisol excretion between formulations was compared through the Wilcoxon's test. Results: All the enroled volunteers successfully completed the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters were comparable in terms of AUC(t) (2.6 +/- 1.5 vs 2.2 +/- 0.7), AUCi (2.9 +/- 1.5 vs 2.4 +/- 0.7), t(max) (0.4 +/- 0.1 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2), C(max)/AUC(i) (0.3 +/- 0.1 vs 0.3 +/- 0.0), and MRT (5.0 +/- 1.4 vs 4.5 +/- 0.6), but not in the case of C(max) (0.9 +/- 0.3 vs 0.7 +/- 0.2) and t(1/2) (3.7 +/- 1.8 vs 2.9 +/- 0.4). The pharmacodynamic effects, measured as the effect over plasma and urine cortisol, were also comparables between both formulations. No severe adverse events were reported and tolerance was comparable between formulations. Conclusion: The systemic availability of intranasal budesonide was comparable for both formulations in terms of most pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacodynamic effect on hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis was also similar. Side effects were scarce and equivalent between the two products. This methodology to compare different budesonide-containing devices is reliable and easy to perform, and should be recommended for similar products intented to be marketed or already on the market.