| Literature DB >> 31179008 |
Toby M Maher1, Michael Kreuter2, David J Lederer3, Kevin K Brown4, Wim Wuyts5, Nadia Verbruggen6, Simone Stutvoet6, Ann Fieuw6, Paul Ford6, Walid Abi-Saab6, Marlies Wijsenbeek7.
Abstract
Introduction: While current standard of care (SOC) for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) slows disease progression, prognosis remains poor. Therefore, an unmet need exists for novel, well-tolerated agents that reduce lung function decline and improve quality of life. Here we report the design of two phase III studies of the novel IPF therapy, GLPG1690. Methods and analysis: Two identically designed, phase III, international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicentre studies (ISABELA 1 and 2) were initiated in November 2018. It is planned that, in each study, 750 subjects with IPF will be randomised 1:1:1 to receive oral GLPG1690 600 mg, GLPG1690 200 mg or placebo, once daily, on top of local SOC, for at least 52 weeks. The primary endpoint is rate of decline of forced vital capacity (FVC) over 52 weeks. Key secondary endpoints are week 52 composite endpoint of disease progression or all-cause mortality (defined as composite endpoint of first occurrence of ≥10% absolute decline in per cent predicted FVC or all-cause mortality at week 52); time to first respiratory-related hospitalisation until end of study; and week 52 change from baseline in the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score (a quality-of-life measure). Ethics and dissemination: Studies will be conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines, Declaration of Helsinki principles, and local ethical and legal requirements. Results will be reported in a peer-reviewed publication. Trial registration numbers: NCT03711162; NCT03733444.Entities:
Keywords: interstitial fibrosis; rare lung diseases
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31179008 PMCID: PMC6530501 DOI: 10.1136/bmjresp-2019-000422
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open Respir Res ISSN: 2052-4439
Figure 1Design of the ISABELA 1 and 2 studies. D, day; EoSA, end-of-study assessment; EoST, end-of-study treatment; FU, follow-up; qd, once daily; V, visit; W, week.
Probability of statistical significance of zero, one or two treatment comparisons with placebo
| mL | 0 successful, % | 1 successful, % | 2 successful, % | Power, % |
| ∆600=80 ∆200=80 | 6.8 | 23.4 | 69.9 | 93.2 |
| ∆600=80 ∆200=60 | 10.1 | 46.9 | 43.0 | 89.9 |
| ∆600=80 ∆200=20 | 11.5 | 84.4 | 4.1 | 88.5 |
| ∆600=80 ∆200=0 | 11.2 | 88.0 | 0.7 | 88.8 |
| ∆600=90 ∆200=60 | 5.1 | 51.1 | 43.8 | 94.9 |
| ∆600=0 ∆200=0 | 95.2 | 4.5 | 0.3 | 4.8 |
Denoting ∆600 and ∆200, the true treatment differences of the two GLPG1690 treatment groups with placebo, and assuming a common standard deviation on the week 52 decline in forced vital capacity of 275 mL, the probability that zero, one or two of the treatment comparisons with placebo will be statistically significant and the power for each scenario are provided in the table.
A sample size of 250 patients in each treatment group will have at least 80% power to show a significant effect, assuming the GLPG1690 600 mg group has a treatment effect of at least 80 mL in the overall population of treatment-naïve patients and patients on standard of care.