Thursday, January 28, 2010

Drug news: Prolacria is done, for the last time.

After a valiant, not to say obdurate, struggle, Prolacria has once again disappointed, this time failing to deliver needed results in its latest Phase III trial, in the face of recent relatively buoyant investor expectations.

While I haven't seen an actual epitaph, I think it can be taken for granted that no more money will be invested in this drug. It's been a long haul and you all tried your best... what a shame it didn't work out. You've got a lot of fans out there.

Inspire Announces Results Of Phase 3 PROLACRIA™ Trial For Dry Eye

Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: ISPH) announced that its Phase 3 clinical trial (Trial 03-113) of PROLACRIA™ (diquafosol tetrasodium ophthalmic solution) 2% for the treatment of dry eye disease did not meet its primary endpoint (p = 0.526) or its secondary endpoint (p = 0.368).

"We have provided the top-line results from this trial to our partner Allergan and we will be conducting a thorough review of the program before determining next steps, if any," stated Christy L. Shaffer, Ph.D., President and CEO of Inspire.

Trial 03-113 was a six-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 490 patients who had a fluorescein staining score of three in the central region of the cornea at baseline, using the National Eye Institute scale of zero to three. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects receiving PROLACRIA, administered four times daily as eye drops, that achieved clearing, or a staining score of zero, in the central region of the cornea in the study eye at the six-week trial endpoint, compared to those receiving placebo. The secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving PROLACRIA that achieved greater than or equal to a two-unit reduction in staining scores at the six-week trial endpoint, compared to those receiving placebo.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Notice the statistics for the primary endpoint: p = 0.526. Usually a p less than or equal to 0.05 is considered significant. This means that there is less than a 5% chance that a "significant" or real result is due to chance and not because it's actually real. Their p value was 0.526! This is the same chance as flipping a coin (in fact, it's worse). So you have a better chance flipping a coin than using the drug in determining if Prolacria will actually "work" (improve scores from 3 to 0). This truly is a miserable result.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if this will effect other drugs chancesd at aproval?

dry eye drugs are so hard to get approved, i just dont hold out much hope for dry eye in the future tbh.

I think the reason the drugs dont work is because they are barking up the wrong tree.. at least with MGD. Drops dont get to the MG's, it needs to be something that can penetrate the glands, we have seen that with azasite.

And the relationship between rosacea and dry eye should be studied. The vascular nature of dry eye and MGD.