Why the study?
Is CTP-499 safe and well-tolerated in patients with chronic kidney disease?
RCT (n=33)
Double-blind
Randomized
Yes
Is CTP-499 safe and well-tolerated in patients with chronic kidney disease?
CTP-499 demonstrated acceptable safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics in patients with moderate chronic kidney disease, supporting further clinical evaluation.
Supports further evaluation in CKD; confirms RCT safety data in moderate disease.
The prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) related to type 2 diabetes is increasing worldwide. In addition to standard of care, treatment with anti-inflammatory and antifibrotic agents such as CTP-499, a novel oral, multisubtype selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterases, may be important in CKD treatment. A phase 1b randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of CTP-499 in CKD patients (25 active, 8 placebo) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 30-59 mL/min/1.73 m(2) was conducted to assess safety and tolerability. Secondary outcomes included pharmacokinetics and exploratory effects on inflammatory and hematology markers. Patients received 600 mg CTP-499 or matching placebo tablets orally once daily for 2 weeks, then twice daily for 2 additional weeks. CTP-499 was well tolerated with no serious or severe adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation. CTP-499 was rapidly absorbed and produced acceptable interpatient variability. Of the 5 metabolites (M1-M5), M5 was the most abundant in plasma and urine. Exposure to CTP-499 and metabolites was higher in CKD patients than previously reported in healthy volunteers. No statistically significant differences were detected between the CTP-499- and placebo-treated groups for any of the biomarkers tested. This study provides data supporting further evaluation of CTP-499 in CKD patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sabounjian et al. (2015) conducted an RCT in Chronic Kidney Disease (n=33). CTP-499 vs. Placebo was evaluated on Safety and tolerability.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: