scholarly journals P131 Efficacy and safety of olokizumab in a phase III trial of patients with moderately to severely active RA inadequately controlled by methotrexate: placebo and active controlled study

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugen Feist ◽  
Saima Chohan ◽  
Saeed Fatenejad ◽  
Sergey Grishin ◽  
Elena Korneva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

Abstract Background/Aims  Olokizumab (OKZ) is a new humanised monoclonal antibody targeting IL-6 directly. Here we present the results of a global randomised clinical trial (RCT) in patients (pts) with RA. Methods  This double-blind, placebo (PBO) and active controlled, RCT in pts with moderately to severely active RA despite MTX (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02760407, CREDO2) was carried out in 18 counties. Pts were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive subcutaneous injections of OKZ 64 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w), adalimumab (ADA) 40mg q2w or PBO for 24 weeks, plus MTX. After week 24, subjects either rolled over into an open-label study or entered the Safety Follow-Up Period for another 20 weeks. The primary endpoint was ACR 20% (ACR20) response rate at week 12. Secondary endpoints included: percentage of subjects with DAS28-CRP <3.2 and improvement of HAQ-DI from baseline at week 12, ACR50 and percentage of subjects with remission (CDAI) ≤2.8 at week 24. Safety outcomes, including adverse events, serious adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were assessed. Results  1,648 subjects were randomised to OKZ 64mg q2w (n = 464), OKZ 64mg q4w (n = 479), ADA 40mg (n = 462) or PBO (n = 243). Baseline characteristics were comparable across treatment arms. The vast majority of the pts completed 24 weeks treatment period 421 (90.7%) in q2w, 437 (91.2%) in q4w, 413 (89.4%) in ADA and 208 (85.6%) in PBO arms and enrolled to open-label extension study: 410 (88.4%), 422 (88.1%), 397 (85.9%) and 199 (81.9%) pts, respectively. Both regimens of OKZ were significantly better than PBO in all primary and secondary endpoints. Furthermore, non-inferiority to ADA was demonstrated for the pre-defined endpoints of ACR20 and DAS28-CRP<3.2 for both OKZ treatment groups. The efficacy outcomes were maintained throughout the 24-week period of the study. Overall incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 70.0% in OKZ q2w arm; 70.9% in OKZ q4w arm, 65.4% in ADA arm and 63.4% in PBO, TEAEs leading to study treatment discontinuation were reported in 4.5%, 6.3%, 5.6% and 3.7% pts, respectively. The number of deaths were comparable among arms: 3 (0.6%; 2 infections, 1 cerebrovascular accident) in the OKZ q2w arm, 2 (0.4%; 1 infection, 1 myocardial ischemia) in OKZ q4w arm, 1 (0.2%; infection) in ADA arm and 1 (0.4%; sudden death) in PBO. The most common treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAEs) were infections. Conclusion  In this global Phase III trial, treatment with OKZ plus MTX in both regimes (OKZ 64 mg q2w and OKZ 64 mg q4w) was associated with significant improvements in the signs, symptoms and physical function of RA compared to PBO plus MTX and non-inferior to ADA plus MTX over a 24-week period. OKZ was well tolerated and no new safety signals were observed. Disclosure  E. Feist: Consultancies; R-Pharm, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi. Honoraria; R-Pharm, Abbvie, AB2Bio, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; R-Pharm, Abbvie, AB2Bio, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Grants/research support; Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai. S. Chohan: None. S. Fatenejad: Consultancies; RPharm International. Shareholder/stock ownership; Pfizer. S. Grishin: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. E. Korneva: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. E.L. Nasonov: Honoraria; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. Member of speakers’ bureau; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. A. Rowińska-Osuch: Consultancies; R-Pharm. M. Samsonov: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm.

Randomized, Open-Label Phase III Trial of Docetaxel Plus High-Dose Calcitriol Versus Docetaxel Plus Prednisone for Patients With Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (16) ◽  
pp. 2191-2198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard I. Scher ◽  
Xiaoyu Jia ◽  
Kim Chi ◽  
Ronald de Wit ◽  
William R. Berry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Castration Resistant ◽  
Open Label Phase

Purpose To compare the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus high-dose calcitriol (DN-101) to docetaxel plus prednisone in an open-label phase III trial. Patients and Methods Nine hundred fifty-three men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) were randomly assigned to Androgen-Independent Prostate Cancer Study of Calcitriol Enhancing Taxotere (ASCENT; 45 μg DN-101, 36 mg/m2 docetaxel, and 24 mg dexamethasone weekly for 3 of every 4 weeks) or control (5 mg prednisone twice daily with 75 mg/m2 docetaxel and 24 mg dexamethasone every 3 weeks) arms. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results At an interim analysis, more deaths were noted in the ASCENT arm, and the trial was halted. The median-follow-up for patients alive at last assessment was 11.7 months. Median OS was 17.8 months (95% CI, 16.0 to 19.5) in the ASCENT arm and 20.2 months (95% CI, 18.8 to 23.0) in the control arm (log-rank P = .002). Survival remained inferior after adjusting for baseline variables (hazard ratio, 1.33; P = .019). The two arms were similar in rates of total and serious adverse events. The most frequent adverse events were GI (reported in 75% of patients), and blood and lymphatic disorders (48%). Docetaxel toxicity leading to dose modification was more frequent in the ASCENT (31%) than in the control arm (15%). Conclusion ASCENT treatment was associated with shorter survival than the control. This difference might be due to either weekly docetaxel dosing, which, in a prior study, showed a trend toward inferior survival compared with an every-3-weeks regimen, or DN-101 therapy.

scholarly journals Ixekizumab, an interleukin-17A specific monoclonal antibody, for the treatment of biologic-naive patients with active psoriatic arthritis: results from the 24-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active (adalimumab)-controlled period of the phase III trial SPIRIT-P1

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J Mease ◽  
Désirée van der Heijde ◽  
Christopher T Ritchlin ◽  
Masato Okada ◽  
Raquel S Cuchacovich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Interleukin 17A

ObjectiveTo assess the safety and efficacy of ixekizumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits interleukin-17A, in a double-blind phase III trial enrolling patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA).MethodsPatients naive to biologic therapy with active PsA were randomised to subcutaneous injections of placebo (N=106), adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks (active reference; N=101), ixekizumab 80 mg once every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) (N=103), or ixekizumab 80 mg once every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) (N=107). Both ixekizumab regimens included a 160-mg starting dose. The primary objective was to assess the superiority of IXEQ2W or IXEQ4W versus placebo as measured by the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response at week 24.ResultsSignificantly more patients treated with ixekizumab achieved an ACR20 response with IXEQ2W (62.1%) or IXEQ4W (57.9%) than placebo (30.2%) (p≤0.001; non-responder imputation method). Disease activity and functional disability were significantly improved with both ixekizumab doses versus placebo at weeks 12 and 24, and there was significantly less progression of structural damage at week 24 (p≤0.01). Clearance of plaque psoriasis was greater with ixekizumab than placebo (p≤0.001). Efficacy results with adalimumab, the active reference arm, showed significant improvements versus placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events were more frequent with ixekizumab (65.7–66.4%) and adalimumab (64.4%) than placebo (47.2%) (p<0.05).ConclusionsIn biologic-naive patients with active PsA, ixekizumab treatment resulted in improvements in disease activity and physical function, as well as in the inhibition of structural damage progression. Overall, adverse events were more frequent in all active groups compared with placebo.Trial registration numberNCT01695239; EudraCT2011-002326-49; Results.

Iodixanol in Abdominal Digital Subtraction Angiography

1993 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 242-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Singh ◽  
R. Sundgren ◽  
B. Bolstad ◽  
L. Björk ◽  
M. Lie
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Clinical Importance ◽  
Diagnostic Information ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Digital Subtraction ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference

The safety, tolerability and efficacy of iodixanol 270 mg I/ml were compared to those of iohexol 300 mg I/ml in a double-blind, randomized, parallel abdominal intra-arterial DSA phase III trial. Fifty-nine patients were included in the trial; 39 patients received iodixanol and 20 received iohexol. The mean volume of iodixanol administered was 235.8 ml (0.93 g I/kg b.w.) while the mean volume of iohexol was 254.7 ml (1.10 g I/kg b.w.). No differences in diagnostic information and radiographic density were apparent in spite of the difference in the concentration of iodine. No serious adverse events occurred. Four patients (10%) in the iodixanol group and 2 (10%) in the iohexol group experienced adverse events. Eight percent of the injections of iodixanol promoted discomfort, compared to 12%) of the injections of iohexol. An increase in S-urea and S-creatinine was seen with both agents the first day after injection, but appeared to be less pronounced with iodixanol than with iohexol. Other serum tests revealed no changes of clinical importance. Both iodixanol and iohexol were found to be effective, safe and well tolerated contrast media for abdominal intra-arterial DSA.

485 Efficacy and Safety of Once- and Twice-Nightly Dosing of Lower-Sodium Oxybate in Adults With Idiopathic Hypersomnia

SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. A191-A192
Author(s):  
Isabelle Arnulf ◽  
Anne Marie Morse ◽  
Patricia Chandler ◽  
Rupa Parvataneni ◽  
Dan Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Oxybate ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Patient Global Impression ◽  
Idiopathic Hypersomnia ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Global Impression Of Change

Abstract Introduction Idiopathic hypersomnia (IH) is a rare central hypersomnolence disorder. In a randomized, controlled study of lower-sodium oxybate (LXB; Xywav™) in adults with IH (NCT03533114), significant differences for LXB compared with placebo were observed in Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS; primary efficacy endpoint), self-reported Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIc), and IH Severity Scale (IHSS; key secondary endpoints). In this clinical study, investigators were permitted to initiate LXB dosing on a once-nightly or twice-nightly regimen. Methods Eligible participants aged 18–75 years began LXB treatment, administered once or twice nightly during an open-label treatment/titration and optimization period (OLTTOP; 10–14 weeks); dose amount/regimen could be adjusted during this period. Participants next entered a 2-week, open-label, stable-dose period (SDP), then were randomized to placebo or to continue LXB treatment during a 2-week, double-blind, randomized withdrawal period (DBRWP). P values are nominal for this exploratory analysis. Results Of 154 enrolled participants, 40 (26%) initiated LXB treatment on a once-nightly regimen. In the efficacy population (n=115), 27 participants were on a once-nightly regimen during SDP (48.1% of whom initiated treatment once nightly during OLTTOP) and 88 participants were on a twice-nightly regimen during SDP (86.4% of whom initiated treatment twice nightly during OLTTOP). During SDP, median (min, max) LXB total dose was 4.5 (2.5, 6) g/night (once-nightly group) and 7.5 (4.5, 9) g/night (twice-nightly group). ESS scores worsened in participants randomized to placebo vs those continuing LXB in the once-nightly group (n=11 and n=15, respectively; LS mean difference [95% CI]: −4.93 [−7.41, −2.46]; P=0.0004) and twice-nightly group (n=47 and n=41, respectively; LS mean difference [95% CI]: −7.44 [−9.15, −5.72]; P&lt;0.0001). Worsening was also observed in PGIc (once-nightly: 81.8% [placebo] vs 26.7% [LXB]; P=0.0077; twice-nightly: 89.4% [placebo] vs 19.5% [LXB]; P&lt;0.0001) and IHSS score (estimated median difference [95% CI], once-nightly: −9.00 [−16.0, −3.0]; P=0.0028; twice-nightly: −12.00 [−15.0, −8.0]; P&lt;0.0001). Common adverse events included nausea (21.4%), headache (16.2%), anxiety (14.9%), dizziness (11.7%), insomnia (11.7%), and vomiting (10.4%). Conclusion The efficacy and safety of LXB in IH were demonstrated for both once-nightly and twice-nightly regimens. The majority of participants initiated and remained on a twice-nightly regimen. Support (if any) Jazz Pharmaceuticals

scholarly journals Olokizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin 6, in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis inadequately controlled by methotrexate: efficacy and safety results of a randomised controlled phase III study

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2021-219876
Author(s):  
Evgeniy Nasonov ◽  
Saeed Fatenejad ◽  
Eugen Feist ◽  
Mariana Ivanova ◽  
Elena Korneva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Disease Activity Index ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of olokizumab (OKZ) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate (MTX).MethodsIn this 24-week multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, patients were randomised 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks, OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks, or placebo plus MTX. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. The secondary efficacy endpoints included percentage of subjects achieving Disease Activity Score 28-joint count based on C reactive protein <3.2, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at week 12, ACR50 response and Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤2.8 at week 24. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed throughout the study.ResultsA total of 428 patients were randomised. ACR20 responses were more frequent with OKZ every 2 weeks (63.6%) and OKZ every 4 weeks (70.4%) than placebo (25.9%) (p<0.0001 for both comparisons). There were significant differences in all secondary efficacy endpoints between OKZ-treated arms and placebo. Treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAEs) were reported by more patients in the OKZ groups compared with placebo. Infections were the most common TESAEs. No subjects developed neutralising antidrug antibodies.ConclusionsTreatment with OKZ was associated with significant improvement in signs, symptoms and physical function of rheumatoid arthritis without discernible differences between the two regimens. Safety was as expected for this class of agents. Low immunogenicity was observed.Trial registration numberNCT02760368.

P136 Efficacy and safety of olokizumab in a phase III trial in patients with moderately to severely active RA inadequately controlled by TNF-α inhibitor therapy

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugen Feist ◽  
Saeed Fatenejad ◽  
Sergey Grishin ◽  
Elena Korneva ◽  
Michael Luggen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Inhibitor Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Tnf Α ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background/Aims  Olokizumab (OKZ) is a new humanised monoclonal antibody targeting IL-6. Here we present the results of the phase III study of OKZ in anti-TNF-IR patients. Methods  Patients with moderately to severely active RA who had previously failed TNF inhibitors (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02760433/CREDO3) were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous (SC) injections of OKZ 64 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w) or placebo (PBO), plus MTX. At week 16, all subjects in the PBO group were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either of OKZ regimes. The primary endpoint was ACR20 response at week 12. Results  368 subjects were randomised according to the protocol and 320 patients (87%) completed the 24-week treatment period. Baseline characteristics were comparable across arms. Both regimens of OKZ were significantly better in primary endpoint: ACR20 were 60.9% (p = 0.0029 in comparison vs. PBO) in OKZ q2w, 59.6% in OKZ q2w (p = 0.0040 in comparison vs. PBO) and 40.6% in PBO. The key efficacy outcomes were maintained throughout the 24-week period of the study. Overall incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were 65.5% in OKZ q2w, 65.0% in OKZ q4w and 50.7% in PBO. Subsequent randomization of PBO arm at week 16 did not change TEAEs incidence rate per treatment group significantly: 64.3% in any OKZ q2w and 59.7% in any OKZ q4w. The majority of TEAEs in all groups were not serious and were of mild or moderate severity. Incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAE) were: 12 (7.0%) subjects in any OKZ q2w; 6 subjects (3.2%) in any OKZ q4w group, all in the first 16 weeks. The most frequently reported TESAEs across all treatment groups were infections and infestations: 2 (1.2%) in OKZ q2w group, 2 (1.1%) in OKZ q4w group. No opportunistic infections including active tuberculosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations or deaths were reported. Conclusion  In this global Phase III trial in patients with moderately to severely active RA inadequately controlled by TNF-α inhibitor therapy, treatment with OKZ plus MTX in both regimes (OKZ 64 mg q2w and OKZ 64 mg q4w) was associated with significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of RA compared to PBO plus MTX over a 24-week period. Treatment with OKZ q2w and q4w in this difficult to treat population was well tolerated and consistent with the established safety profile of anti-IL-6 agents. Disclosure  E. Feist: Consultancies; R-Pharm, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi. Honoraria; R-Pharm, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; R-Pharm, Abbvie, AB2Bio, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Grants/research support; Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai. S. Fatenejad: Consultancies; RPharm International. Shareholder/stock ownership; Pfizer. S. Grishin: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. E. Korneva: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. M. Luggen: Consultancies; Amgen, Sun Pharmaceuticals, R-Pharm International. Grants/research support; I havAbbvie, R-Pharm, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and GSK. E. Nasonov: Honoraria; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. Member of speakers’ bureau; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. M. Samsonov: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm.

scholarly journals Phase III double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O and reference bevacizumab in stage IV non-small-cell lung cancer

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175883592110458
Author(s):  
Mark A. Socinski ◽  
Cornelius F. Waller ◽  
Tazeen Idris ◽  
Igor Bondarenko ◽  
Alexander Luft ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Small Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Cell Lung Cancer ◽  
Small Cell ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Small Cell Lung ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind

Purpose: This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of proposed biosimilar MYL-1402O with reference bevacizumab (BEV), as first-line treatment for patients with stage IV non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients and methods: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive MYL-1402O or bevacizumab with carboplatin-paclitaxel up to 18 weeks (6 cycles), followed by up to 24 weeks (8 cycles) of bevacizumab monotherapy. The primary objective was comparison of overall response rate (ORR), based on independently reviewed best tumor responses as assessed during the first 18 weeks. ORR was analyzed per US Food and Drug Administration (ratio of ORR) and European Medicines Agency (difference in ORRs) requirements for equivalence evaluation. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, disease control rate, duration of response, overall survival, safety, and immunogenicity over a period of 42 weeks, and pharmacokinetics (up to 18 weeks). Results: A total of 671 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population. The ratio of ORR was 0.96 [confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR was −1.6 (CI −9.0, 5.9) between treatment arms; CIs were within the predefined equivalence margins. Overall, the incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and serious adverse events was comparable. Treatment-emergent anti-drug antibody (ADA) positivity was transient, with no notable differences between treatment arms (6.5% versus 4.8% ADA positivity rate in MYL-1402O versus BEV, respectively). The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower in the MYL-1402O arm (0.6%) compared to the bevacizumab arm (2.5%). Conclusions: MYL-1402O is therapeutically equivalent to bevacizumab, based on the ORR analyses, with comparable secondary endpoints. Trial Registry Information EU Clinical Trials Register, Registration # EudraCT no. 2015-005141-32 https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2015-005141-32 Plain language summary Previous studies established bioequivalence of the proposed bevacizumab biosimilar MYL-1402O to reference bevacizumab. In this randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, MYL-1402O ( n = 337) demonstrated comparable efficacy to bevacizumab ( n = 334) in treating advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer per Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency requirements for equivalence; the ratio of objective response rate (ORR) was 0.96 [90% confidence interval (CI) 0.83, 1.12] and the difference in ORR (MYL-1402O:bevacizumab) was −1.6 (95% CI −9.0, 5.9). Median progression-free survival at 42 weeks was comparable: 7.6 (7.0, 9.5) with MYL-1402O versus 9.0 (7.2, 9.7) months ( p = 0.0906) with bevacizumab, by independent review. Treatment-emergent adverse events leading to death (2.4% vs 1.5%), serious adverse events (17.6% vs 16.7%), and antidrug antibodies (6.5% vs 4.8%), were comparable in the MYL-1402O vs bevacizumab arms, respectively. The incidence of neutralizing antibody post-baseline was lower with MYL-1402O (0.6%) than with bevacizumab (2.5%). These findings confirm therapeutic equivalence of MYL-1402O to bevacizumab, providing opportunities for improving access to bevacizumab.

scholarly journals Subcutaneous Abatacept for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Longterm Data from the ACQUIRE Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Genovese ◽  
César Pacheco Tena ◽  
Arturo Covarrubias ◽  
Gustavo Leon ◽  
Eduardo Mysler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Link Type

Objective.Assess longterm tolerability, safety, and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (ABA) in methotrexate-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.The phase III, multinational Abatacept Comparison of Sub[QU]cutaneous Versus Intravenous in Inadequate Responders to MethotrexatE (ACQUIRE) trial comprised a 6-month, randomized, double-blind (DB) period, in which patients received intravenous (IV) or SC ABA, plus MTX, followed by an open-label, longterm extension (LTE), in which patients received SC ABA, 125 mg/week. Safety and efficacy from the LTE (∼3.5 yrs of exposure) are reported.Results.Patients who completed the DB period (1372/1385, 99.1%) entered the LTE; 1134 patients (82.7%) kept taking the treatment at time of reporting. Mean (SD) was 31.9 months (6.8); median (range) exposure was 33.0 (8–44) months. Patients entering the LTE had longstanding, moderate-to-severe disease [mean 7.6 (7.9) yrs and DAS28 (C-reactive protein) 6.2 (0.9)]. Incidence rates (events/100 patient-yrs) were reported for serious adverse events (8.76, 95% CI 7.71, 9.95), infections (44.80, 95% CI 41.76, 48.01), serious infections (1.72, 95% CI 1.30, 2.27), malignancies (1.19, 95% CI 0.86, 1.66), and autoimmune events (1.31, 95% CI 0.95, 1.79). Twenty-seven patients (2%) experienced injection-site reactions; all except 1 were mild. American College of Rheumatology 20, 50, and 70 responses achieved during the DB period were maintained through the LTE, and on Day 981 were 80.2% (95% CI 77.2, 83.2), 63.5% (95% CI 58.2, 68.9), and 39.5% (95% CI 34.0, 44.9) for patients who kept taking SC ABA, and 80.0% (95% CI 77.0, 83.0), 63.2% (95% CI 57.8, 68.7), and 39.2% (95% CI 33.7, 44.7) for those who switched from IV to SC ABA.Conclusion.These findings support SC ABA as a well-tolerated and efficacious longterm treatment for patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00559585).

Analysis of the effect of crossover from placebo (PBO) to darolutamide (DARO) on overall survival (OS) benefit in the ARAMIS Trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 240-240
Author(s):  
Neal D. Shore ◽  
Karim Fizazi ◽  
Teuvo Tammela ◽  
Murilo Luz ◽  
Manuel Philco Salas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Effect ◽  
Safety Profile ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Primary Analysis ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
The Impact

240 Background: DARO is a structurally distinct androgen receptor inhibitor approved for the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC) based on significantly prolonged metastasis-free survival compared with PBO (median 40.4 vs 18.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34–0.50; P < 0.0001) and a favorable safety profile in the phase III ARAMIS trial. Following unblinding at the primary analysis, crossover from PBO to DARO was permitted for the subsequent open-label treatment phase. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the effect of PBO–DARO crossover on OS benefit. Methods: Patients (pts) with nmCRPC receiving androgen deprivation therapy were randomized 2:1 to DARO (n = 955) or PBO (n = 554). In addition to OS, secondary endpoints included times to pain progression, first cytotoxic chemotherapy, first symptomatic skeletal event, and safety. The OS analysis was planned to occur after approximately 240 deaths, and secondary endpoints were evaluated in a hierarchical order. Iterative parameter estimation (IPE) and rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) analyses were performed as pre-planned sensitivity analyses to adjust for the treatment effect of PBO–DARO crossover. The IPE method used a parametric model for the survival times and iteratively determined the model parameter describing the magnitude of the treatment effect, whereas a grid search and non-parametric log-rank test were used for the RPSFT analysis. The IPE and RPSFT analyses both generated a Kaplan–Meier curve for the PBO arm that predicts what would have been observed in the absence of PBO–DARO crossover. Results: After unblinding, 170 pts (30.7% of those randomized to PBO) crossed over from PBO to DARO; median treatment duration from unblinding to the final data cut-off was 11 months. Final analysis of the combined double-blind and open label periods was conducted after 254 deaths (15.5% of DARO and 19.1% of PBO pts) and showed a statistically significant OS benefit for DARO vs PBO (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53–0.88; P = 0.003). Results from the IPE (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51–0.84; P < 0.001) and RPSFT (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.51–0.90; P = 0.007) analyses were similar to those from the intention-to-treat population, showing that the impact of PBO–DARO crossover was small. Additional analyses accounting for the effect of PBO–DARO crossover will be presented. The safety profile of DARO continued to be favorable at the final analysis, and discontinuation rates at the end of the double-blind period remained unchanged from the primary analysis (8.9% with DARO and 8.7% with PBO). Conclusions: Early treatment with DARO in men with nmCRPC is associated with significant improvement in OS regardless of pts crossing over from PBO to DARO. The safety profile of DARO remained favorable at the final analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02200614.

scholarly journals A Phase 1 Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study to Assess the Safety, Immunogenicity and Genetic Stability of a New Potential Pandemic H7N9 Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine in Healthy Adults

Vaccines ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 296
Author(s):  
Irina Kiseleva ◽  
Irina Isakova-Sivak ◽  
Marina Stukova ◽  
Marianna Erofeeva ◽  
Svetlana Donina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Influenza Vaccine ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Healthy Adults ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Temperature Sensitive ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Human Influenza Virus ◽  
Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine

This study describes a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled phase I clinical trial in healthy adults of a new potential pandemic H7N9 live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) based on the human influenza virus of Yangtze River Delta hemagglutinin lineage (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03739229). Two doses of H7N9 LAIV or placebo were administered intranasally to 30 and 10 subjects, respectively. The vaccine was well-tolerated and not associated with increased rates of adverse events or with any serious adverse events. Vaccine virus was detected in nasal swabs during the 6 days after vaccination or revaccination. A lower frequency of shedding was observed after the second vaccination. Twenty-five clinical viral isolates obtained after the first and second doses of vaccine retained the temperature-sensitive and cold-adapted phenotypic characteristics of LAIV. There was no confirmed transmission of the vaccine strain from vaccinees to placebo recipients. After the two H7N9 LAIV doses, an immune response was observed in 96.6% of subjects in at least one of the assays conducted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document