Trial Outcomes & Findings for A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Tolerability of Tirbanibulin Ointment 1% in Adult Participants With Actinic Keratosis (NCT NCT05279131)

This study was conducted at 20 sites in the United States from 28 June 2022 to 28 December 2022.

A total 105 participants were enrolled in the study to receive study treatment. At least 50 percent (%) of the participants were 65 years old (65%) and 71 participants were treated on the face and 34 participants on the scalp. The study consisted of a 4-week (28-day) Screening Period, a 5-day Treatment Period, and a Response Assessment Period of approximately 7 weeks.

A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Tolerability of Tirbanibulin Ointment 1% in Adult Participants With Actinic Keratosis

Local tolerability score was evaluated by investigator in terms of presence and absence of erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration signs and its severity in the areas of body where medication was applied. These symptoms were assessed by using a 4 - point grade scale of 0 - 3, where a score of 0=absent, 1=mild (slightly, barely perceptible), 2=moderate (distinct presence), and 3=severe (marked, intense). The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Number of participants categorized by local tolerability score by visit for each individual signs (erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration) at Day 5 were reported.

Local tolerability score was evaluated by investigator in terms of presence and absence of erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration signs and its severity in the areas of body where medication was applied. These symptoms were assessed by using a 4 - point grade scale of 0 - 3, where a score of 0=absent, 1=mild (slightly, barely perceptible), 2=moderate (distinct presence), and 3=severe (marked, intense). The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Number of participants categorized by local tolerability score by visit for each individual signs (erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration) at Day 8 were reported.

Local tolerability score was evaluated by investigator in terms of presence and absence of erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration signs and its severity in the areas of body where medication was applied. These symptoms were assessed by using a 4 - point grade scale of 0 - 3, where a score of 0=absent, 1=mild (slightly, barely perceptible), 2=moderate (distinct presence), and 3=severe (marked, intense). The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Number of participants categorized by local tolerability score by visit for each individual signs (erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration) at Day 15 were reported.

Local tolerability score was evaluated by investigator in terms of presence and absence of erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration signs and its severity in the areas of body where medication was applied. These symptoms were assessed by using a 4 - point grade scale of 0 - 3, where a score of 0=absent, 1=mild (slightly, barely perceptible), 2=moderate (distinct presence), and 3=severe (marked, intense). The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Number of participants categorized by local tolerability score by visit for each individual signs (erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration) at Day 29 were reported.

Local tolerability score was evaluated by investigator in terms of presence and absence of erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration signs and its severity in the areas of body where medication was applied. These symptoms were assessed by using a 4 - point grade scale of 0 - 3, where a score of 0=absent, 1=mild (slightly, barely perceptible), 2=moderate (distinct presence), and 3=severe (marked, intense). The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Number of participants categorized by local tolerability score by visit for each individual signs (erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration) at Day 57 were reported.

Maximum local tolerability score post baseline was defined as the highest grade of any LSR reported at any post-baseline visits for a participant. Local tolerability score was assessed for signs erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration using a 4 - point grade scale of 0 - 3, where a score of 0=absent, 1=mild (slightly, barely perceptible), 2=moderate (distinct presence), and 3=severe (marked, intense). The higher score indicates severe symptoms. If a participant maximum individual sign local tolerability score stayed at 0 throughout the study, the participant was considered censored at last local tolerability score observation. Number of participants with maximum local tolerability score for each individual signs including erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration were reported.

Time to maximum local tolerability score (in days) for each individual sign was calculated as \[Date of first post-baseline occurrence of maximum local tolerability score for this individual sign - Date of first dose\]. If a participant maximum individual sign LTA score stays at 0 throughout the study, the participants was considered censored at their last LTA score observation. Maximum local tolerability score was assessed for each signs using a 4 - point scale of 0 - 3, where 0 = absent, 1= mild, 2= moderate and 3 = severe. The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Time to maximum local tolerability score for erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration was reported.

Local tolerability signs composite score by visit was defined as the sum of the scores graded from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) on all six individual tolerability sign categories - erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration which gave total composite score ranged from 0 to 18. The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Local tolerability signs total composite score assessed from baseline up to Day 5 was reported.

Local tolerability signs composite score by visit was defined as the sum of the scores graded from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) on all six individual tolerability sign categories - erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration which gave total composite score ranged from 0 to 18. The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Local tolerability signs total composite score by visit at Day 8 was reported.

Local tolerability signs composite score by visit was defined as the sum of the scores graded from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) on all six individual tolerability sign categories - erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration which gave total composite score ranged from 0 to 18. The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Local tolerability signs total composite score by visit at Day 15 was reported.

Local tolerability signs composite score by visit was defined as the sum of the scores graded from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) on all six individual tolerability sign categories - erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration which gave total composite score ranged from 0 to 18. The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Local tolerability signs total composite score by visit at Day 29 was reported.

Local tolerability signs composite score by visit was defined as the sum of the scores graded from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) on all six individual tolerability sign categories - erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration which gave total composite score ranged from 0 to 18. The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Local tolerability signs total composite score by visit at Day 57 was reported.

The maximum local tolerability signs composite score across visits was derived as the maximum local tolerability composite score observed post-baseline. Local tolerability signs composite score was defined as the sum of the scores graded from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) on all six individual tolerability sign categories - erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration which gave total composite score ranged from 0 to 18. The higher score indicates severe symptoms. Maximum local tolerability signs total composite score post baseline was reported.

Time to maximum composite local tolerability score (in days) was calculated as (Date of first post-baseline occurrence of maximum composite local tolerability score - Date of first dose). The maximum local tolerability signs composite score across visits was derived as the maximum local tolerability composite score observed post-baseline. Local tolerability signs composite score was defined as the sum of the scores graded from 0 (absent) to 3 (severe) on all six individual tolerability sign categories - erythema, flaking/scaling, crusting, swelling, vesiculation/pustulation, and erosion/ulceration which gave total composite score ranged from 0 to 18. The higher score indicates severe symptoms. If a participant's maximum composite local tolerability score stays at 0 throughout the study, the participant was considered censored at their last local tolerability score observation. Time to maximum local tolerability total composite score was reported.

Absence and presence of pigmentation (i.e., hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation) and scarring in the treatment field by visit at Day 5 was reported.

Absence and presence of pigmentation (i.e., hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation) and scarring in the treatment field by visit at Day 8 was reported.

Absence and presence of pigmentation (i.e., hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation) and scarring in the treatment field by visit at Day 15 was reported.

Absence and presence of pigmentation (i.e., hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation) and scarring in the treatment field by visit at Day 29 was reported.

Absence and presence of pigmentation (i.e., hypopigmentation and hyperpigmentation) and scarring in the treatment field by visit at Day 57 was reported.

TEAEs were defined as either those adverse events (AEs) with an onset after dosing or those pre-existing conditions that worsened after dosing. An AE was defined as any untoward medical occurrence in a participant or clinical investigation participant administered an Investigational Product. An SAE with any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose, resulted in death, was life-threatening, required in-patient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, resulted in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, was a congenital anomaly/birth defect in the child of a participant who was exposed to the study drug, or any other medically important event that may jeopardize the patient or require intervention to prevent one of the other outcomes. AESI's included in this study were skin cancers (including basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma) based on their relevance for the current intended use. TEAEs included both serious and non-serious AEs.

Laboratory parameters included blood chemistry, hamatology, and urinalysis. Clinically significant laboratory abnormalities assessment was based on Investigator interpretation. Number of participants with clinically significant abnormalities in laboratory parameters (included hematology, blood chemistry and urinalysis) were reported.

Vital signs included measurement of pulse rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and body temperature. Clinically significant vital signs abnormalities assessment was based on Investigator interpretation. Number of participants with clinically significant abnormalities in vital signs were reported.

Physical examination included weight and height measurements. Clinically significant physical examination abnormalities assessment was based on Investigator interpretation. Number of participants with clinically significant abnormalities in physical examination were reported.

ECG included heart rhythm, heart rate, QRS intervals, QT intervals, RR intervals and corrected QT (QTc) intervals parameters measurement. Clinically significant ECGs abnormalities assessment was based on Investigator interpretation. Number of participants with clinically significant abnormalities in ECG were reported.