GSK2982772 is a highly selective inhibitor of receptor‐interacting protein kinase 1 (RIPK1) being developed to treat chronic inflammatory diseases. This first‐in‐human study evaluated safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and exploratory pharmacodynamics (PD) of GSK2982772 administered orally to healthy male volunteers. This was a Phase I, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind study. In Part A, subjects received single ascending doses of GSK2982772 (0.1‐120 mg) or placebo in a crossover design during each of 4 treatment periods. In Part B, subjects received repeat doses of GSK2982772 (20 mg once daily [QD] to up to 120 mg twice daily [BID]) or placebo for 14 days. Part C was an open‐label relative bioavailability study comparing 20‐mg tablets vs capsules. Safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), RIPK1 target engagement (TE), and pharmacodynamics (PD) were assessed. The most common adverse events (AEs) were contact dermatitis and headache. Most AEs were mild in intensity, and there were no deaths or serious AEs. The PK of GSK2982772 was approximately linear over the dose range studied (up to 120 mg BID). There was no evidence of drug accumulation upon repeat dosing. Greater than 90% RIPK1 TE was achieved over a 24‐hour period for the 60‐mg and 120‐mg BID dosing regimens. Single and repeat doses of GSK2982772 were safe and well tolerated. PK profiles showed dose linearity. The high levels of RIPK1 TE support progression into Phase II clinical trials for further clinical development.

ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of belimumab, a fully human immunoglobulin G1λ monoclonal antibody against B-lymphocyte stimulator, in participants with generalized myasthenia gravis (MG) who remained symptomatic despite standard of care (SoC) therapy.MethodsEligible participants with MG were randomized 1:1 to receive IV belimumab 10 mg/kg or placebo in this phase II, placebo-controlled, multicenter, double-blind study (NCT01480596; BEL115123). Participants received SoC therapies throughout the 24-week treatment phase and 12-week follow-up period. The primary efficacy endpoint was mean change from baseline in the Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) scale at week 24; safety assessments included the frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs.ResultsForty participants were randomized (placebo n = 22; belimumab n = 18). The mean change in QMG score from baseline at week 24 was not significantly different for belimumab vs placebo (p = 0.256). There were no statistically significant differences between treatment groups for secondary endpoints, including the MG Composite and MG–Activity of Daily Living scores. Acetylcholine receptor antibody levels decreased over time in both treatment groups. No unexpected AEs were identified and occurrence was similar in the belimumab (78%) and placebo (91%) groups. One participant receiving placebo died (severe sepsis) during the treatment phase.ConclusionsThe primary endpoint was not met for belimumab in participants with generalized MG receiving SoC. There was no significant difference in mean change in the QMG score at week 24 for belimumab vs placebo. The safety profile of belimumab was consistent with previous systemic lupus erythematosus studies.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that for participants with generalized MG, belimumab did not significantly improve QMG score compared with placebo.

Background: Interval duration measurements (IDMs) were compared between standard 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECGs) and 6-lead ECGs recorded with AliveCor's KardiaMobile 6L, a hand-held mobile device designed for use by patients at home. Methods: Electrocardiograms were recorded within, on average, 15 min from 705 patients in Mayo Clinic's Windland Smith Rice Genetic Heart Rhythm Clinic. Interpretable 12-lead and 6-lead recordings were available for 685 out of 705 (97%) eligible patients. The most common diagnosis was congenital long QT syndrome (LQTS, 343/685 [50%]), followed by unaffected relatives and patients (146/685 [21%]), and patients with other genetic heart diseases, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (36 [5.2%]), arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (23 [3.4%]), and idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (14 [2.0%]). IDMs were performed by a central ECG laboratory using lead II with a semiautomated technique.Results: Despite differences in patient position (supine for 12-lead ECGs and sitting for 6-lead ECGs), mean IDMs were comparable, with mean values for the 12-lead and 6-lead ECGs for QTcF, heart rate, PR, and QRS differing by 2.6 ms, −5.5 beats per minute, 1.0 and 1.2 ms, respectively. Despite a modest difference in heart rate, intervals were close enough to allow a detection of clinically meaningful abnormalities. Conclusions:The 6-lead hand-held device is potentially useful for a clinical follow-up of remote patients, and for a safety follow-up of patients participating in clinical trials who cannot visit the investigational site. This technology may extend the use of 12-lead ECG recordings during the current COVID-19 pandemic as remote patient monitoring becomes more common in virtual or hybrid-design clinical studies.

No abstract

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia encountered in clinical practice. The associated hemodynamic changes can lead to symptoms of palpitations, fatigue, light-headedness, or dyspnea. Extensive research in the use of antiarrhythmic drugs has been performed both to facilitate the conversion of atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and to maintain normal sinus rhythm. The relative merits of a rhythm control versus rate control strategy are briefly discussed. Efficacy of the available agents for pharmacologic cardioversion is reviewed in detail. Important drugs for maintenance of sinus rhythm include amiodarone, flecainide, propafenone, sotalol, and dofetilide. Selection of the appropriate antiarrhythmic drug must be individualized to the clinical situation, with Class IC drugs being first-line agents in the absence of structural heart disease. Regardless of agent selected, appropriate monitoring for development of adverse effects is of utmost importance.