User login
LONDON –
Results from trials such as ESSENCE, with allantoin, and DELIVERS, with diacerein, were “disappointing,” Dédée Murrell, BMBCh, MD, pointed out at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).
Those two topical agents were most likely let down by the trials’ design, said Dr. Murrell, of St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, but she noted that there were still some promising trials that were either ongoing, such as EASE, with Oleogel-S10, or that were about to be unblinded, such as SISTERS, with sirolimus.
Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a group of rare genetic diseases that can cause the skin to blister and peel away to varying degrees, causing itchy and painful skin, as well as recurrent wounds, some of which may seem never to heal and that increase the risk for squamous cell carcinoma. Although finding a cure for the disease is high on the research agenda, finding a reliable therapy that can soothe and protect the skin is of equal importance.
Trials and tribulations
Conducting trials in rare diseases can be difficult because the studies are often small and poorly controlled, Dr. Murrell said during an oral presentation at the meeting. To gain regulatory approval, trials need to have an active and a placebo arm, because “even though we’re dealing with a rare disease, we still have to show statistical significance between the two arms.”
However, it is not just about finding enough participants who meet the inclusion criteria and adequately controlling the study, as finding funding can also be a significant hurdle. That is the case particularly when an existing drug with no patent protection is proposed to be repurposed. As an example, Dr. Murrell said that many patients with EB may use gentian violet to treat their condition, but it has been around for so long and is so widely used, that funding a trial to formally prove its merit is unlikely. In addition, “there are special caveats that occur in dermatology clinical trials with topical drugs that don’t exist [in trials] with systemic treatments, one of which is that it is very important to keep other variables the same,” Dr. Murrell said. “So, for example, the dressings need to stay the same throughout a trial with a topical therapy, because if you improve the dressings [during the course of the trial], you could mask the effect of the treatment.” Similarly, the bathing and cleansing routines of the participants need to remain the same throughout the trial.
“We also need to have validated instruments to prove whether these treatments are working, and the instruments need to be objective as well as subjective,” Dr. Murrell advised. For example, inflammation and blistering need to be scored separately from scarring and skin damage. “You have to conduct a clinical trial to be able to verify that there is diminished scarring or damage, because those are the longer-term complications.” Inflammation and blistering are valid endpoints to use in shorter-term studies.
Dr. Murrell also cautioned on getting too enthused about the results of case reports. “We do get excited when we see a patient using something new and they seem to be getting much better,” but such reports do not have a placebo arm, or, if there is one, then there is no vehicle control, she said. It’s important to include a run-in period in a trial to establish a new baseline and to ensure that any effects seen with a topical agent are independent of the carrier substance or any altered bathing behavior or dressing habits, which could skew the results.
ESSENCE and allantoin
So what went wrong in the phase 3 ESSENCE trial with allantoin, which was halted early in September 2017? The trial had included 169 patients with any type of EB – simplex, recessive dystrophic, and junctional non-Herlitz – who were randomized to treatment with the allantoin-containing cream SD-101 or a placebo cream containing only the vehicle. The creams were applied daily to the entire body for 3 months, with the primary endpoint being total wound closure at the end of the treatment period. Total wound closure was a requirement of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Murrell said, but it is now known that 100% closure is not always likely, which the agency itself now concedes.
“Most disappointingly, no significant difference was found [between the study drug and placebo], therefore it didn’t meet the primary endpoint, and you’re not even allowed to consider secondary endpoints – those are the rules of the game,” she said. As a result, the trial was stopped in 2017.
For inclusion in the study, patients had to have at least one target wound that had been present for at least 3 weeks, but there was no stratification on the duration of wounds in the randomization process. That meant that some individuals with wounds of shorter duration had unintentionally ended up in the placebo arm – favoring healing – and those with more chronic wounds had been in the allantoin arm. So, because the study arms might not have been equally balanced at baseline, it would have been harder for the actual treatment to demonstrate a benefit, Dr. Murrell suggested.
Another problem with the trial was that the vehicle cream contained elements, such as lanolin, already associated with wound healing. That would have given patients in the placebo arm an advantage because anyone applying the cream every day would probably get better or improve to some degree.
The patients were also required to have daily dressing changes and baths and, “if you give any patient that advice and they comply with it for a period of time, they are going to improve,” whether or not they are applying the study drug. Dr. Murrell said that the researchers likely should have done a run-in period first and then established a new baseline to randomize the patients.
“Lastly, no one had ever done a study of what we essentially tell eczema patients to do every day … to moisturize, because that will provide extra protection and barrier to their skin. So, if anything, the ESSENCE study shows that moisturizing has a protective effect of the vehicle for patients with EB,” she said.
DELIVERS and diacerein
Another trial that was stopped prematurely was the phase 2 DELIVERS study, which was set up to assess the benefits of topical diacerein in people with EB simplex. Diacerein, an extract of rhubarb root, was tested in 54 patients, who were randomized to apply either diacerein or vehicle ointment for 8 weeks.
Initially, the results “looked very promising,” Dr. Murrell said, because there was a trend toward improved EB simplex lesions, with the primary endpoint of at least a 60% reduction in lesions met by 57.1% of diacerein-treated and 53.8% of vehicle-treated patients.
However, the trial included use of the Investigator’s Global Assessment Scale at the FDA’s behest, but the tool had not been validated in previous EB trials, and which didn’t seem to show any benefit of the active over the placebo ointment. (The Investigator’s Global Assessment is a 5-point scale used for overall clinical assessment of severity of disease, ranging from 0 to 4, where a higher score denotes worse outcome.)In a poster presented separately at the meeting, the DELIVERS researchers noted that “the lack of statistical significance in the primary endpoint could be explained in part by milder disease in the diacerein group.” The mean body surface area of EB simplex lesions within the assessment area at baseline was 5.76% in the diacerein group and 7.13% in the vehicle group. The researchers proposed that perhaps a higher concentration of diacerein than the 1% used in the trial might have been needed.
Sirolimus and EB simplex
Dr. Murrell noted that a pilot study, known as the SISTERS trial, had been conducted with a 2% sirolimus topical ointment at her institution and at Stanford (Calif.) University. This prospective, double-blind study had involved 16 patients with EB simplex, in which blisters tend to be confined to the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The patients were assigned to treat both feet with either topical sirolimus or a placebo cream for 12 weeks. After a 4-week wash-out period, the patients switched to using the opposite cream for an additional 12 weeks.
Sirolimus is an inhibitor of the mTOR pathway, and, according to a description of the study on ClinicalTrials.gov, the researchers’ aim was to inhibit “the mTOR pathway to down-regulate the translation of defective keratin proteins.” That would allow a transition from supportive care, which is the current practice for EB simplex, to using a targeted molecular therapy to improve patient mobility and quality of life, they note on the site.
“We look forward to having that study unblinded,” Dr. Murrell said, adding that “data should be ready in a few months.”
EASE and Oleogel-S10
Oleogel-S10 is a gel that contains a birch bark extract dissolved in sunflower oil. It is already approved in Europe (Episalvan) for the treatment of partial-thickness skin wounds, but its use in EB remains investigational.
In a poster presentation at the meeting, Stella Gewert, MD, of the University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues discussed their experience using Oleogel-S10 in the treatment of four patients – each with a different type of EB – who applied the gel for between 6 days and 3 months.
Promising effects were seen, including reduced pruritus and pain, wounds healing more quickly, and reductions in lesion size. “During treatment, dressing requirements were reduced, and patient quality of life improved,” the researchers observed.
Mark Sumeray, MD, the chief medical officer of Amryt Pharmaceuticals, which is developing Oleogel-S10, said it was important to emphasize that Oleogel-S10 is a gel and not a cream. Gels are mixed with oil and are easier to apply – an important consideration for those with EB, he explained, whereas creams tend to be mixed with water and are stickier.
The phase 3 EASE trial is looking at the efficacy and safety of the gel in patients with junctional and dystrophic EB, and recruitment is ongoing, Dr. Murrell said. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with the first complete closure of a target wound within 45 days of treatment initiation. The estimated primary completion date for the trial is June 2020, and it is projected to end by 2022.
Scioderm, in collaboration with Amicus, funded the ESSENCE trial; Castle Creek financed the DELIVERS study; Amryt is supporting the EASE study; and Stanford University is sponsor of the SISTERS study. Dr. Murrell has been the principal investigator for trials run by Amicus, Amryt, Castle Creek, and Shire, and she acknowledged receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from those companies and others. Dr. Gewert did not report any financial disclosures. Dr. Sumeray is an employee and shareholder of Amryt.
LONDON –
Results from trials such as ESSENCE, with allantoin, and DELIVERS, with diacerein, were “disappointing,” Dédée Murrell, BMBCh, MD, pointed out at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).
Those two topical agents were most likely let down by the trials’ design, said Dr. Murrell, of St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, but she noted that there were still some promising trials that were either ongoing, such as EASE, with Oleogel-S10, or that were about to be unblinded, such as SISTERS, with sirolimus.
Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a group of rare genetic diseases that can cause the skin to blister and peel away to varying degrees, causing itchy and painful skin, as well as recurrent wounds, some of which may seem never to heal and that increase the risk for squamous cell carcinoma. Although finding a cure for the disease is high on the research agenda, finding a reliable therapy that can soothe and protect the skin is of equal importance.
Trials and tribulations
Conducting trials in rare diseases can be difficult because the studies are often small and poorly controlled, Dr. Murrell said during an oral presentation at the meeting. To gain regulatory approval, trials need to have an active and a placebo arm, because “even though we’re dealing with a rare disease, we still have to show statistical significance between the two arms.”
However, it is not just about finding enough participants who meet the inclusion criteria and adequately controlling the study, as finding funding can also be a significant hurdle. That is the case particularly when an existing drug with no patent protection is proposed to be repurposed. As an example, Dr. Murrell said that many patients with EB may use gentian violet to treat their condition, but it has been around for so long and is so widely used, that funding a trial to formally prove its merit is unlikely. In addition, “there are special caveats that occur in dermatology clinical trials with topical drugs that don’t exist [in trials] with systemic treatments, one of which is that it is very important to keep other variables the same,” Dr. Murrell said. “So, for example, the dressings need to stay the same throughout a trial with a topical therapy, because if you improve the dressings [during the course of the trial], you could mask the effect of the treatment.” Similarly, the bathing and cleansing routines of the participants need to remain the same throughout the trial.
“We also need to have validated instruments to prove whether these treatments are working, and the instruments need to be objective as well as subjective,” Dr. Murrell advised. For example, inflammation and blistering need to be scored separately from scarring and skin damage. “You have to conduct a clinical trial to be able to verify that there is diminished scarring or damage, because those are the longer-term complications.” Inflammation and blistering are valid endpoints to use in shorter-term studies.
Dr. Murrell also cautioned on getting too enthused about the results of case reports. “We do get excited when we see a patient using something new and they seem to be getting much better,” but such reports do not have a placebo arm, or, if there is one, then there is no vehicle control, she said. It’s important to include a run-in period in a trial to establish a new baseline and to ensure that any effects seen with a topical agent are independent of the carrier substance or any altered bathing behavior or dressing habits, which could skew the results.
ESSENCE and allantoin
So what went wrong in the phase 3 ESSENCE trial with allantoin, which was halted early in September 2017? The trial had included 169 patients with any type of EB – simplex, recessive dystrophic, and junctional non-Herlitz – who were randomized to treatment with the allantoin-containing cream SD-101 or a placebo cream containing only the vehicle. The creams were applied daily to the entire body for 3 months, with the primary endpoint being total wound closure at the end of the treatment period. Total wound closure was a requirement of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Murrell said, but it is now known that 100% closure is not always likely, which the agency itself now concedes.
“Most disappointingly, no significant difference was found [between the study drug and placebo], therefore it didn’t meet the primary endpoint, and you’re not even allowed to consider secondary endpoints – those are the rules of the game,” she said. As a result, the trial was stopped in 2017.
For inclusion in the study, patients had to have at least one target wound that had been present for at least 3 weeks, but there was no stratification on the duration of wounds in the randomization process. That meant that some individuals with wounds of shorter duration had unintentionally ended up in the placebo arm – favoring healing – and those with more chronic wounds had been in the allantoin arm. So, because the study arms might not have been equally balanced at baseline, it would have been harder for the actual treatment to demonstrate a benefit, Dr. Murrell suggested.
Another problem with the trial was that the vehicle cream contained elements, such as lanolin, already associated with wound healing. That would have given patients in the placebo arm an advantage because anyone applying the cream every day would probably get better or improve to some degree.
The patients were also required to have daily dressing changes and baths and, “if you give any patient that advice and they comply with it for a period of time, they are going to improve,” whether or not they are applying the study drug. Dr. Murrell said that the researchers likely should have done a run-in period first and then established a new baseline to randomize the patients.
“Lastly, no one had ever done a study of what we essentially tell eczema patients to do every day … to moisturize, because that will provide extra protection and barrier to their skin. So, if anything, the ESSENCE study shows that moisturizing has a protective effect of the vehicle for patients with EB,” she said.
DELIVERS and diacerein
Another trial that was stopped prematurely was the phase 2 DELIVERS study, which was set up to assess the benefits of topical diacerein in people with EB simplex. Diacerein, an extract of rhubarb root, was tested in 54 patients, who were randomized to apply either diacerein or vehicle ointment for 8 weeks.
Initially, the results “looked very promising,” Dr. Murrell said, because there was a trend toward improved EB simplex lesions, with the primary endpoint of at least a 60% reduction in lesions met by 57.1% of diacerein-treated and 53.8% of vehicle-treated patients.
However, the trial included use of the Investigator’s Global Assessment Scale at the FDA’s behest, but the tool had not been validated in previous EB trials, and which didn’t seem to show any benefit of the active over the placebo ointment. (The Investigator’s Global Assessment is a 5-point scale used for overall clinical assessment of severity of disease, ranging from 0 to 4, where a higher score denotes worse outcome.)In a poster presented separately at the meeting, the DELIVERS researchers noted that “the lack of statistical significance in the primary endpoint could be explained in part by milder disease in the diacerein group.” The mean body surface area of EB simplex lesions within the assessment area at baseline was 5.76% in the diacerein group and 7.13% in the vehicle group. The researchers proposed that perhaps a higher concentration of diacerein than the 1% used in the trial might have been needed.
Sirolimus and EB simplex
Dr. Murrell noted that a pilot study, known as the SISTERS trial, had been conducted with a 2% sirolimus topical ointment at her institution and at Stanford (Calif.) University. This prospective, double-blind study had involved 16 patients with EB simplex, in which blisters tend to be confined to the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The patients were assigned to treat both feet with either topical sirolimus or a placebo cream for 12 weeks. After a 4-week wash-out period, the patients switched to using the opposite cream for an additional 12 weeks.
Sirolimus is an inhibitor of the mTOR pathway, and, according to a description of the study on ClinicalTrials.gov, the researchers’ aim was to inhibit “the mTOR pathway to down-regulate the translation of defective keratin proteins.” That would allow a transition from supportive care, which is the current practice for EB simplex, to using a targeted molecular therapy to improve patient mobility and quality of life, they note on the site.
“We look forward to having that study unblinded,” Dr. Murrell said, adding that “data should be ready in a few months.”
EASE and Oleogel-S10
Oleogel-S10 is a gel that contains a birch bark extract dissolved in sunflower oil. It is already approved in Europe (Episalvan) for the treatment of partial-thickness skin wounds, but its use in EB remains investigational.
In a poster presentation at the meeting, Stella Gewert, MD, of the University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues discussed their experience using Oleogel-S10 in the treatment of four patients – each with a different type of EB – who applied the gel for between 6 days and 3 months.
Promising effects were seen, including reduced pruritus and pain, wounds healing more quickly, and reductions in lesion size. “During treatment, dressing requirements were reduced, and patient quality of life improved,” the researchers observed.
Mark Sumeray, MD, the chief medical officer of Amryt Pharmaceuticals, which is developing Oleogel-S10, said it was important to emphasize that Oleogel-S10 is a gel and not a cream. Gels are mixed with oil and are easier to apply – an important consideration for those with EB, he explained, whereas creams tend to be mixed with water and are stickier.
The phase 3 EASE trial is looking at the efficacy and safety of the gel in patients with junctional and dystrophic EB, and recruitment is ongoing, Dr. Murrell said. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with the first complete closure of a target wound within 45 days of treatment initiation. The estimated primary completion date for the trial is June 2020, and it is projected to end by 2022.
Scioderm, in collaboration with Amicus, funded the ESSENCE trial; Castle Creek financed the DELIVERS study; Amryt is supporting the EASE study; and Stanford University is sponsor of the SISTERS study. Dr. Murrell has been the principal investigator for trials run by Amicus, Amryt, Castle Creek, and Shire, and she acknowledged receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from those companies and others. Dr. Gewert did not report any financial disclosures. Dr. Sumeray is an employee and shareholder of Amryt.
LONDON –
Results from trials such as ESSENCE, with allantoin, and DELIVERS, with diacerein, were “disappointing,” Dédée Murrell, BMBCh, MD, pointed out at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).
Those two topical agents were most likely let down by the trials’ design, said Dr. Murrell, of St. George Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, but she noted that there were still some promising trials that were either ongoing, such as EASE, with Oleogel-S10, or that were about to be unblinded, such as SISTERS, with sirolimus.
Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is a group of rare genetic diseases that can cause the skin to blister and peel away to varying degrees, causing itchy and painful skin, as well as recurrent wounds, some of which may seem never to heal and that increase the risk for squamous cell carcinoma. Although finding a cure for the disease is high on the research agenda, finding a reliable therapy that can soothe and protect the skin is of equal importance.
Trials and tribulations
Conducting trials in rare diseases can be difficult because the studies are often small and poorly controlled, Dr. Murrell said during an oral presentation at the meeting. To gain regulatory approval, trials need to have an active and a placebo arm, because “even though we’re dealing with a rare disease, we still have to show statistical significance between the two arms.”
However, it is not just about finding enough participants who meet the inclusion criteria and adequately controlling the study, as finding funding can also be a significant hurdle. That is the case particularly when an existing drug with no patent protection is proposed to be repurposed. As an example, Dr. Murrell said that many patients with EB may use gentian violet to treat their condition, but it has been around for so long and is so widely used, that funding a trial to formally prove its merit is unlikely. In addition, “there are special caveats that occur in dermatology clinical trials with topical drugs that don’t exist [in trials] with systemic treatments, one of which is that it is very important to keep other variables the same,” Dr. Murrell said. “So, for example, the dressings need to stay the same throughout a trial with a topical therapy, because if you improve the dressings [during the course of the trial], you could mask the effect of the treatment.” Similarly, the bathing and cleansing routines of the participants need to remain the same throughout the trial.
“We also need to have validated instruments to prove whether these treatments are working, and the instruments need to be objective as well as subjective,” Dr. Murrell advised. For example, inflammation and blistering need to be scored separately from scarring and skin damage. “You have to conduct a clinical trial to be able to verify that there is diminished scarring or damage, because those are the longer-term complications.” Inflammation and blistering are valid endpoints to use in shorter-term studies.
Dr. Murrell also cautioned on getting too enthused about the results of case reports. “We do get excited when we see a patient using something new and they seem to be getting much better,” but such reports do not have a placebo arm, or, if there is one, then there is no vehicle control, she said. It’s important to include a run-in period in a trial to establish a new baseline and to ensure that any effects seen with a topical agent are independent of the carrier substance or any altered bathing behavior or dressing habits, which could skew the results.
ESSENCE and allantoin
So what went wrong in the phase 3 ESSENCE trial with allantoin, which was halted early in September 2017? The trial had included 169 patients with any type of EB – simplex, recessive dystrophic, and junctional non-Herlitz – who were randomized to treatment with the allantoin-containing cream SD-101 or a placebo cream containing only the vehicle. The creams were applied daily to the entire body for 3 months, with the primary endpoint being total wound closure at the end of the treatment period. Total wound closure was a requirement of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Murrell said, but it is now known that 100% closure is not always likely, which the agency itself now concedes.
“Most disappointingly, no significant difference was found [between the study drug and placebo], therefore it didn’t meet the primary endpoint, and you’re not even allowed to consider secondary endpoints – those are the rules of the game,” she said. As a result, the trial was stopped in 2017.
For inclusion in the study, patients had to have at least one target wound that had been present for at least 3 weeks, but there was no stratification on the duration of wounds in the randomization process. That meant that some individuals with wounds of shorter duration had unintentionally ended up in the placebo arm – favoring healing – and those with more chronic wounds had been in the allantoin arm. So, because the study arms might not have been equally balanced at baseline, it would have been harder for the actual treatment to demonstrate a benefit, Dr. Murrell suggested.
Another problem with the trial was that the vehicle cream contained elements, such as lanolin, already associated with wound healing. That would have given patients in the placebo arm an advantage because anyone applying the cream every day would probably get better or improve to some degree.
The patients were also required to have daily dressing changes and baths and, “if you give any patient that advice and they comply with it for a period of time, they are going to improve,” whether or not they are applying the study drug. Dr. Murrell said that the researchers likely should have done a run-in period first and then established a new baseline to randomize the patients.
“Lastly, no one had ever done a study of what we essentially tell eczema patients to do every day … to moisturize, because that will provide extra protection and barrier to their skin. So, if anything, the ESSENCE study shows that moisturizing has a protective effect of the vehicle for patients with EB,” she said.
DELIVERS and diacerein
Another trial that was stopped prematurely was the phase 2 DELIVERS study, which was set up to assess the benefits of topical diacerein in people with EB simplex. Diacerein, an extract of rhubarb root, was tested in 54 patients, who were randomized to apply either diacerein or vehicle ointment for 8 weeks.
Initially, the results “looked very promising,” Dr. Murrell said, because there was a trend toward improved EB simplex lesions, with the primary endpoint of at least a 60% reduction in lesions met by 57.1% of diacerein-treated and 53.8% of vehicle-treated patients.
However, the trial included use of the Investigator’s Global Assessment Scale at the FDA’s behest, but the tool had not been validated in previous EB trials, and which didn’t seem to show any benefit of the active over the placebo ointment. (The Investigator’s Global Assessment is a 5-point scale used for overall clinical assessment of severity of disease, ranging from 0 to 4, where a higher score denotes worse outcome.)In a poster presented separately at the meeting, the DELIVERS researchers noted that “the lack of statistical significance in the primary endpoint could be explained in part by milder disease in the diacerein group.” The mean body surface area of EB simplex lesions within the assessment area at baseline was 5.76% in the diacerein group and 7.13% in the vehicle group. The researchers proposed that perhaps a higher concentration of diacerein than the 1% used in the trial might have been needed.
Sirolimus and EB simplex
Dr. Murrell noted that a pilot study, known as the SISTERS trial, had been conducted with a 2% sirolimus topical ointment at her institution and at Stanford (Calif.) University. This prospective, double-blind study had involved 16 patients with EB simplex, in which blisters tend to be confined to the palms of the hands and soles of the feet. The patients were assigned to treat both feet with either topical sirolimus or a placebo cream for 12 weeks. After a 4-week wash-out period, the patients switched to using the opposite cream for an additional 12 weeks.
Sirolimus is an inhibitor of the mTOR pathway, and, according to a description of the study on ClinicalTrials.gov, the researchers’ aim was to inhibit “the mTOR pathway to down-regulate the translation of defective keratin proteins.” That would allow a transition from supportive care, which is the current practice for EB simplex, to using a targeted molecular therapy to improve patient mobility and quality of life, they note on the site.
“We look forward to having that study unblinded,” Dr. Murrell said, adding that “data should be ready in a few months.”
EASE and Oleogel-S10
Oleogel-S10 is a gel that contains a birch bark extract dissolved in sunflower oil. It is already approved in Europe (Episalvan) for the treatment of partial-thickness skin wounds, but its use in EB remains investigational.
In a poster presentation at the meeting, Stella Gewert, MD, of the University of Freiburg (Germany) and colleagues discussed their experience using Oleogel-S10 in the treatment of four patients – each with a different type of EB – who applied the gel for between 6 days and 3 months.
Promising effects were seen, including reduced pruritus and pain, wounds healing more quickly, and reductions in lesion size. “During treatment, dressing requirements were reduced, and patient quality of life improved,” the researchers observed.
Mark Sumeray, MD, the chief medical officer of Amryt Pharmaceuticals, which is developing Oleogel-S10, said it was important to emphasize that Oleogel-S10 is a gel and not a cream. Gels are mixed with oil and are easier to apply – an important consideration for those with EB, he explained, whereas creams tend to be mixed with water and are stickier.
The phase 3 EASE trial is looking at the efficacy and safety of the gel in patients with junctional and dystrophic EB, and recruitment is ongoing, Dr. Murrell said. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with the first complete closure of a target wound within 45 days of treatment initiation. The estimated primary completion date for the trial is June 2020, and it is projected to end by 2022.
Scioderm, in collaboration with Amicus, funded the ESSENCE trial; Castle Creek financed the DELIVERS study; Amryt is supporting the EASE study; and Stanford University is sponsor of the SISTERS study. Dr. Murrell has been the principal investigator for trials run by Amicus, Amryt, Castle Creek, and Shire, and she acknowledged receipt of honoraria or consultation fees from those companies and others. Dr. Gewert did not report any financial disclosures. Dr. Sumeray is an employee and shareholder of Amryt.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM EB 2020