Phase 1 study of crisaborole in Japanese healthy volunteers and patients with atopic dermatitis

Crisaborole ointment, 2%, is a non-steroidal phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD). This parallel-cohort, phase 1 study was conducted to investigate skin irritation potential and safety of crisaborole in healthy Japanese adults (cohort 1) and the safety and pharmacokinetic profile of crisaborole and metabolites AN7602 and AN8323 in Japanese adults with mild to moderate AD (cohort 2). In cohort 1, 20 healthy volunteers received single applications of crisaborole and vehicle simultaneously on separate locations under 48-h occlusion. In cohort 2, 12 patients with mild to moderate AD received crisaborole (n = 10) or vehicle (n = 2) twice daily for 8 days. Skin irritation and safety were assessed in cohort 1. Pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed in cohort 2. Skin irritation index (scale 0–400) was 40.0 for crisaborole and 5.0 for vehicle. No treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were reported in cohort 1. The most common TEAE in the crisaborole group in cohort 2 were application site irritation (n = 7) and application site pain (n = 4). Crisaborole was rapidly absorbed, with limited systemic exposure between days 1 and 8 that was comparable with that seen in US-based participants in previous trials. Crisaborole had higher skin irritation than vehicle under occlusion in healthy Japanese adults and had an acceptable safety profile in Japanese adults with mild to moderate AD.     

Alosetron versus traditional pharmacotherapy in clinical practice: effects on resource use,health-related quality of life,safety and symptom improvement in women with severe diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome

Objective: Severe diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) is associated with decreased health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and increased health care costs. Treatment recommendations for IBS-D often start with traditional pharmacotherapy (TP), with escalation to alosetron, rifaximin or eluxadoline if there is no success. There has been no previous head-to-head clinical trial comparing IBS-D treatment outcome for alosetron versus TP. This study, GSK protocol S3B30020, evaluated resource use, work productivity, health-related quality of life and global symptom response in women with IBS-D who were treated with alosetron or TP.

Methods: A total of 1956 patients who met criteria for severe IBS-D were randomized to treatment with alosetron 1?mg twice daily (BID) or only TP for up to 24 weeks. Work productivity and resource use were evaluated by standard questionnaires, HRQOL by the IBSQOL instrument and IBS symptoms by the Global Improvement Scale (GIS).

Results: Compared to only TP, alosetron-treated patients reported: (1) fewer clinic/office visits for any health problem (p?=?.0181) or for IBS-D (p?=?.0004); (2) reduced use of over-the-counter medications for IBS-D (p < .0001); (3) fewer days of lost work productivity (p < .0001); (4) decreased restriction of social and outdoor activities (p < .0001); and (5) greater global improvement in IBS-D symptoms (p < .0001). Alosetron treatment improved HRQOL scores for all domains (p < .0001). Incidence of adverse events during alosetron use was not remarkable and was similar to that previously reported.

Conclusions: Alosetron 1?mg BID significantly reduced health care utilization and lost productivity, and significantly improved global IBS symptoms, HRQOL, and participation in outdoor and social activities compared with treatment response to TP.