Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35449322›Full record

Trial reportAdvances in therapy2022

Ixekizumab Citrate-Free Formulation: Results from Two Clinical Trials.

Sanjay Chabra, B J Gill, Gaia Gallo, Danting Zhu, Celine Pitou, Christopher D Payne, Ana Accioly, Luis Puig

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Advances in therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03848403 phase1terminatednot on this map

A Randomized Study to Investigate Injection-Site Pain Following Subcutaneous Injections of 2 Ixekizumab Test Formulations Compared to the Commercial Formulation Using a Pre-filled Syringe in Healthy Subjects

TypeinterventionalSponsorEli Lilly and CompanyRan2019 to 2019Enrolled70ConditionsHealthyArmsIxekizumab
NCT04259346 phase1completednot on this map

Bioequivalence of an Alternate Ixekizumab Formulation Compared to the Commercial Formulation in Healthy Subjects

TypeinterventionalSponsorEli Lilly and CompanyRan2020 to 2021Enrolled245ConditionsHealthyArmsIxekizumab
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sanjay ChabraTexas Arthritis Center, El Paso, TX, USA. schabra@hotmail.com.
B J GillComplete Dermatology, Houston, TX, USA.
Gaia GalloEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Danting ZhuEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Celine PitouEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Christopher D PayneEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Ana AcciolyEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Luis PuigHospital de La Santa Creu I Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Eli Lilly (United States) · USUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSubcutaneous (SC) injection is a common route of drug administration; however, injection site pain (ISP) might create a negative patient experience. We evaluated ISP, bioequivalence, and overall safety of the citrate-free (CF) formulation of ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17A.

methodsTwo phase 1, single-blind studies were conducted in healthy participants. The crossover study A (NCT03848403) evaluated pain intensity on injection as measured by visual analog scale of pain (VAS) scores. Subjects (N = 70) were randomized 1:1:1 at the beginning to three possible treatment sequences and received a 1 mL SC injection of the three formulations sequentially in the abdomen on days 1, 8, and 15, respectively. A mixed-effects repeated measures analysis model was used to analyze VAS score by time post-injection. Study B (NCT04259346) evaluated the bioequivalence of a single 80 mg dose of CF formulation compared to the original commercial formulation. Subjects (N = 245) were randomized 1:1 to either commercial or CF formulation and received a single SC injection into the abdomen, arm, or thigh.

resultsPrimary endpoint was achieved in both studies. In study A, least-squares mean (LSM) difference of VAS scores immediately post injection between commercial (n = 61) and CF formulation (n = 63) was - 21.7 (p < 0.0001), indicating a lower degree of pain associated with CF formulation. In study B, bioequivalence of the CF formulation was established as 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric LSM AUC

conclusionIxekizumab CF formulation proved to be bioequivalent, was associated with less ISP, and had no other notable differences in the safety profile compared to the original commercial formulation. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03848403, NCT04259346.

Indexed as

Citric AcidInjection Site ReactionAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedArea Under CurveCross-Over StudiesHumansPainSingle-Blind MethodTherapeutic EquivalencyAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCitric AcidixekizumabBioequivalenceCitrate-freeInjection site painIxekizumab

Identifiers

PMID35449322
PMCPMC9022732
OpenAlexW4224235205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.