# Efficacy and Safety of SA001 in Patients with Primary Sjögren’s Syndrome: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

## TL;DR

A new drug called SA001 did not significantly improve symptoms in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome, despite better absorption in the body.

## Contribution

The study explores whether improved systemic exposure of SA001 translates into clinical benefits for pSS patients, finding it insufficient for symptom improvement.

## Key findings

- SA001 showed no statistically significant improvements in ocular or oral endpoints compared to placebo.
- SA001 was generally well-tolerated with mostly mild-to-moderate adverse events.
- The results suggest systemic exposure alone may not be sufficient for treating established glandular disease in pSS.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: SA001, a mofetil-ester prodrug of rebamipide, was developed to enhance gastrointestinal absorption and systemic exposure, which was confirmed in a prior Phase 1 study. Given the limited efficacy of current symptomatic therapies for primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS), this trial aimed to assess whether the improved bioavailability of SA001 could translate into clinical benefits. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 2a study enrolled adults who met the 2016 ACR–EULAR criteria for pSS. The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: SA001 at 360, 720, or 1080 mg/day (administered twice daily for 8 weeks) or placebo. Exploratory ocular assessments included tear break-up time, ocular surface staining, the Schirmer test, and the Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness. Oral endpoints included unstimulated whole salivary flow and the Xerostomia Inventory. Anti-SSA(Ro) antibodies were assessed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Safety evaluations comprised adverse events (AEs), ophthalmic examinations, laboratory tests, and vital signs. The efficacy outcomes were exploratory, and this study was not powered to formally test efficacy hypotheses. Results: Twenty-eight women (mean age 58.54 ± 9.29 years; range 41–75 years) were enrolled in this study and randomly assigned to one of the study groups. SA001 showed no statistically significant improvements versus placebo in ocular or oral endpoints, and no consistent dose–response relationship was observed. The anti-SSA(Ro) findings did not differ meaningfully across the groups. SA001 was generally well-tolerated, with infrequent, mostly mild-to-moderate AEs; however, one serious AE occurred in the placebo group. No clinically relevant ophthalmic or laboratory safety signals were detected. Conclusions: Despite the fact that markedly increased systemic exposure has been demonstrated previously, SA001 did not improve the dryness outcomes in pSS. These findings suggest that systemic exposure alone may be insufficient in established glandular disease and highlight the need for tissue-exposure-driven strategies and biomarker-informed patient selection in future studies. Predefined primary efficacy endpoints and objective, gland-proximal measures of target engagement (e.g., standardized salivary gland ultrasonography and salivary or tear fluid biomarker assessments) may help to better interpret local pharmacodynamic activity and the likelihood of a clinically meaningful benefit.