Gießen , Lahn, Germany

REACH: RWE Retrospective Study to Evaluate Cenobamate Impact on Health Care Resource Utilization

A Phase 3, Placebo-Controlled Study to Investigate LP352 in Children and Adults With Dravet Syndrome (DS)

A Study to Investigate LP352 in Children and Adults With Developmental and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE)

Capivasertib Plus Fulvestrant vs. Fulvestrant in Primary High-risk Lobular Breast Cancer

The evaluation of CCCA in the HR+/HER2- invasive lobular breast cancer patient population allows assessment of treatment efficacy with an achievable sample size of HR+/HER2- breast cancer patients within an acceptable and scientifically meaningful duration of recruitment. CCCA can be assessed immediately after last patients end of treatment. Central blinded pathological assessment of CCCA is planned in this study as a standardized preparation of the sampled tissue by the central pathologist. This pathologist is blinded regarding the study therapy administered, i. e. with or without capivasertib. The addition of capivasertib to fulvestrant in many clinical trials correlates with an improvement in PFS compared to fulvestrant alone in patients with HR+/HER2- locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. This effect was observed regardless of a PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway activation. None of the ongoing studies investigate the effects of the combined treatment in invasive lobular breast cancer. Given that these tumors are less likely to respond to chemotherapy, identification of patients that can be spared from chemotherapy is desirable. On the other hand, it is important to identify patients with invasive lobular breast cancer not responding to neoadjuvant ET who might be at increased risk for recurrence, who would therefore potentially benefit from further adjuvant therapies including chemotherapy. Given the high rates of PI3K pathway alterations in such tumors, it is expected that the CCCA rate could be increased by adding capivasertib to fulvestrant. GBG expect that the potential benefit of improved CCCA rate with a combination treatment compared to fulvestrant monotherapy would outweigh the potential risks due to added toxicity, which has already been shown in clinical trials to be well tolerated by patients.

The LYMPH Trial - Microsurgical Versus Conservative Treatment of Chronic Breast Cancer Associated Lymphedema

To date, conservative complex physical decongestion therapy (CDT) is the gold standard for BCRL (breast cancer related lymphedema) and includes manual lymphatic drainage, local compression with bandages and garments, physical exercises and meticulous skin care. It is, however, too often ineffective to prevent stage progression in curing BCRL and purely symptomatic. Lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) and vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) are two surgical techniques that, in contrast to CDT, are able to actually address the underlying causes and eventually restore the lymphatic drainage. LVA achieves this by creating numerous bypasses between lymphatic vessels and venules allowing the drainage of excessive fluid within the subcutaneous tissues into the venous system, while VLNT usually brings functioning lymph nodes to an area devoid of lymph nodes or with dysfunctional lymph nodes, thus enabling the spontaneous development of new lymphatic pathways. Both techniques have shown very promising results with low complication rates and improved Quality of Life (QoL) for the patients. However, no multicentric randomized controlled trial (RCT) has yet prospectively evaluated the superiority of these surgical techniques over CDT alone, limiting patient's access to most effective treatment available. Requests for cost reimbursement must still be submitted to insurance companies in most countries and are often rejected, thus delaying surgical treatment and resulting in prolonged suffering of affected patients. This is untenable seeing as affected patients suffer from a heavy physical, psychological and financial burden. This pragmatic, randomized, multicenter trial aims to establish a solid scientific basis assessing the superiority of surgical treatment over CDT alone.

A Randomized Study of XEN1101 Versus Placebo in Focal-Onset Seizures

Approximately 360 subjects will be randomized in a blinded manner to one of two active treatment groups or placebo in a 1:1:1 fashion (XEN1101 25 mg : 15 mg : Placebo). Eligible subjects will have up to 9.5 weeks of baseline to assess frequency of seizures, followed by 12 weeks of blinded treatment. In order to be included in the study, subjects must be treated with a stable dose of 1 to 3 allowable antiseizure medications (ASMs) for at least one month prior to screening, during baseline, and throughout the double-blind treatment period (DBP) of the study. During the DBP, subjects will be instructed to orally take XEN1101 or placebo once daily with an evening meal. Subjects who complete the 12-week DBP will have the opportunity to qualify and enroll in a separate open-label extension (OLE) study for continued treatment with XEN1101. Subjects who do not enroll in the OLE will enter a 8-week post treatment follow-up period.

RCT to Evaluate STERN FIX Device As a Sternal Stabilization System in Patients After Sternotomy

A Study to Determine the Effect of Triheptanoin Compared With Even-Chain MCT on MCEs in Pediatric Patients With LC-FAOD

Participants will be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive triheptanoin or MCT oil. The duration of the study is estimated to be 3.5 to 4 years. The study comprises the following: Screening Period, Baseline (Month 0), Double-blind Treatment Period (including Titration and End of Study Visit), Safety Follow-up Phone Visit, and an Open Access Period. In addition, a substudy will examine the effect of triheptanoin versus MCT on decreasing liver fat fraction to avoid or improve steatosis in subjects with LC-FAOD. Participants older than 2 years of age at selected sites will be invited to screen for the Liver Substudy.

A Study to Assess Disease Activity in Adolescent and Adult Participants With Atopic Dermatitis Who Receive Oral Upadacitinib Tablets in a Real-World Setting

A Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Afimetoran Compared With Placebo in Participants With Active Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)