4.2 Article

Riociguat for the Treatment of Raynaud's Phenomenon: A Single-Dose, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Cross-Over Pilot Study (DIGIT)

期刊

CLINICAL DRUG INVESTIGATION
卷 38, 期 11, 页码 1061-1069

出版社

ADIS INT LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-018-0698-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bayer AG (Berlin, Germany)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Objective Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) is characterized by transient digital ischemia and is commonly associated with connective tissue disease. Treatment remains unsatisfactory. Here we evaluate the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of a single dose of the soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat in RP. Methods DIGIT was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study. Patients with primary or secondary RP were randomized to a single oral dose of riociguat 2mg or placebo in a cross-over design (73days). Efficacy was assessed as placebo-corrected change in digital blood flow 2h post-dose at room temperature (RT) or following cold exposure (CE), measured by laser-speckle contrast analysis. Patients were regarded as responders if placebo-corrected digital blood flow increased by10% from baseline at RT or after CE. Results Of 20 eligible patients, 17 (85%) were female and mean [standard deviation (SD)] age was 52 (13.8) years. Placebo-corrected changes in digital blood flow were + 46% [90% confidence interval (CI) -6 to + 98] at RT and -9% (90% CI -63 to + 44) after CE, with high inter-individual variability. Eight patients (40%) were responders at RT, and 12 (60%) after CE. Riociguat increased mean (SD) digital blood flow in responders at RT by + 136% (114) and in responders following CE by + 39% (53). Riociguat was well tolerated, with few adverse events. Conclusion In this pilot study, single-dose riociguat was well tolerated in patients with RP and resulted in improved digital blood flow in some patient subsets, with high inter-individual variability. Long-term evaluation is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据