scholarly journals Phase III, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group study to evaluate the similarities between LBEC0101 and etanercept reference product in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis inadequately responding to methotrexate

2017 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 488-494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hiroaki Matsuno ◽  
Masato Tomomitsu ◽  
Atsushi Hagino ◽  
Seonghye Shin ◽  
Jiyoon Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Reference Product ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Parallel Group ◽  
Registration Number

ObjectiveTo evaluate the similarities between LBEC0101 (etanercept biosimilar) and the etanercept reference product (ETN-RP) in terms of efficacy and safety, including immunogenicity, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate treatment.MethodsThis phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, 54-week study was conducted in Japan and Korea. The primary efficacy endpoint was the change from baseline in the disease activity score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at week 24. American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate, adverse events (AEs), pharmacokinetics and development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were also evaluated.ResultsIn total, 374 patients were randomised to LBEC0101 (n=187) or ETN-RP (n=187). The least squares mean changes from baseline in DAS28-ESR at week 24 in the per-protocol set were −3.01 (95% CI −3.198 to −2.820) in the LBEC0101 group and −2.86 (95% CI −3.051 to −2.667) in the ETN-RP group. The estimated between-group difference was −0.15 and its 95% CI was −0.377 to 0.078, which was within the prespecified equivalence margin of −0.6 to 0.6. ACR20 response rates at week 24 were similar between the groups (LBEC0101 93.3% vs ETN-RP 86.7%). The incidence of AEs up to week 54 was comparable between the groups (LBEC0101 92.0% vs ETN-RP 92.5%), although fewer patients in the LBEC0101 group (1.6%) than the ETN-RP group (9.6%) developed ADAs.ConclusionThe clinical efficacy of LBEC0101 was equivalent to that of ETN-RP. LBEC0101 was well tolerated and had a comparable safety profile to ETN-RP.Trial registration numberNCT02357069.

scholarly journals A randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing SB2, an infliximab biosimilar, to the infliximab reference product Remicade in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jung-Yoon Choe ◽  
Nenad Prodanovic ◽  
Jaroslaw Niebrzydowski ◽  
Ivan Staykov ◽  
Eva Dokoupilova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Reference Product ◽  
Methotrexate Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Adjusted Rate

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SB2 to the infliximab reference product (INF) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy.MethodsThis is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, multinational, multicentre parallel group study. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate therapy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SB2 or INF of 3 mg/kg. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 30. Inclusion of the 95% CI of the ACR20 response difference within a ±15% margin was required for equivalence.Results584 subjects were randomised into SB2 (N=291; 290 analysed) or INF (N=293). The ACR20 response at week 30 in the per-protocol set was 64.1% in SB2 versus 66.0% in INF. The adjusted rate difference was −1.88% (95% CI −10.26% to 6.51%), which was within the predefined equivalence margin. Other efficacy outcomes such as ACR50/70, disease activity score measured by 28 joints and European League against Rheumatism response were similar between SB2 and INF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (57.6% in SB2 vs 58.0% in INF) as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADA) to infliximab up to week 30 (55.1% in SB2 vs 49.7% in INF). The PK profile was similar between SB2 and INF. Efficacy, safety and PK by ADA subgroup were comparable between SB2 and INF.ConclusionsSB2 was equivalent to INF in terms of ACR20 response at week 30. SB2 was well tolerated with a comparable safety profile, immunogenicity and PK to INF.Trial registration numberNCT01936181.

scholarly journals A phase III randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study comparing SB4 with etanercept reference product in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Emery ◽  
Jiří Vencovský ◽  
Anna Sylwestrzak ◽  
Piotr Leszczyński ◽  
Wieslawa Porawska ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Reference Product ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Parameters ◽  
Weekly Dose ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Parallel Group

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of SB4 (an etanercept biosimilar) with reference product etanercept (ETN) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy.MethodsThis is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study with a 24-week primary endpoint. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite MTX treatment were randomised to receive weekly dose of 50 mg of subcutaneous SB4 or ETN. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 24. Other efficacy endpoints as well as safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were also measured.Results596 patients were randomised to either SB4 (N=299) or ETN (N=297). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was 78.1% for SB4 and 80.3% for ETN. The 95% CI of the adjusted treatment difference was −9.41% to 4.98%, which is completely contained within the predefined equivalence margin of −15% to 15%, indicating therapeutic equivalence between SB4 and ETN. Other efficacy endpoints and pharmacokinetic endpoints were comparable. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (55.2% vs 58.2%), and the incidence of antidrug antibody development up to week 24 was lower in SB4 compared with ETN (0.7% vs 13.1%).ConclusionsSB4 was shown to be equivalent with ETN in terms of efficacy at week 24. SB4 was well tolerated with a lower immunogenicity profile. The safety profile of SB4 was comparable with that of ETN.Trial registration numbersNCT01895309, EudraCT 2012-005026-30.

Efficacy and safety of pamapimod in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving stable methotrexate therapy

2009 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 364-367 ◽  
Author(s):  
R E Alten ◽  
C Zerbini ◽  
S Jeka ◽  
F Irazoque ◽  
F Khatib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
European League Against Rheumatism ◽  
Efficacy Measure ◽  
The Individual

Objective:To determine the efficacy and safety of pamapimod in adult patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate clinical response to methotrexate (MTX).Methods:Patients receiving stable doses of MTX were randomised to one of six dose groups and received 12 weeks of double-blind pamapimod (up to 300 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients with ⩾20% improvement in RA based on the American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at 12 weeks. Secondary measures were ACR50, Disease Activity Score (DAS)/European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) responses and the individual ACR core set of parameters. Safety measures included adverse events (AEs), laboratory testing and immunology assessments.Results:On a background of MTX, the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response at week 12 in the pamapimod groups (31% to 43%) was not significantly different from placebo (34%). Secondary efficacy end points showed a similar pattern. AEs were typically mild and included infections, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness and rashes; AEs resulting in discontinuation of study drug were primarily attributed to infections.Conclusion:In patients with active RA receiving stable doses of MTX, pamapimod showed non-significant improvement in efficacy outcomes compared to placebo.

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.

SAT0136 RELATIVE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF TOFACITINIB, BARICITINIB, UPADACITINIB, AND FILGOTINIB, IN COMPARISON WITH ADALIMUMAB IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: A BAYESIAN NETWORK META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1005.1-1005
Author(s):  
Y. H. Lee ◽  
G. G. Song
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Acr20 Response Rate

Background:Methotrexate (MTX), an effective disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) [2], is the most widely used DMARD for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, not all patients are responsive to the drug; 30% of the patients discontinue therapy within 1 year of commencing the treatment, usually because of the lack of efficacy or undesirable adverse effects Small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitors are clinically developed for the treatment of RA.Objectives:The aim of this study is to investigate the relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, and filgotinib in comparison with adalimumab in patients with active RA and having inadequate responses to MTX.Methods:We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib, and adalimumab in RA patients having inadequate responses to MTX.Results:Four RCTs, comprising 5,451 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The baricitinib 4mg+MTX and upadacitinib 15mg+MTX group showed a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate than the adalimumab 40mg+MTX group. The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that baricitinib 4mg+MTX had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by upadacitinib 15mg+MTX, tofacitinib 5mg+MTX, filgotinib 200mg+MTX, filgotinib 100mg+MTX, adalimumab 40mg+MTX, and placebo+MTX. The upadacitinib 15mg+MTX and baricitinib 4mg+MTX groups showed significantly higher ACR50 and ACR70 response rates than adalimumab 40mg+MTX. In terms of Herpes zoster infection, the ranking probability based on the SUCRA indicated that placebo+MTX were likely to be the safest treatments, followed by filgotinib 200mg+MTX, filgotinib 100mg+MTX, adalimumab 40mg+MTX, tofacitinib 5mg+MTX, upadacitinib 15mg+MTX, and baricitinib 4mg+MTX. Regarding safety analysis, no statistically significant differences were found between the respective intervention groups.Conclusion:In RA patients with an inadequate response to MTX, baricitinib 4mg+MTX and upadacitinib 15mg+MTX showed the highest ACR response rates, suggesting a difference in efficacy among the different JAK inhibitors.References:[1]Fleischmann R, Mysler E, Hall S, Kivitz AJ, Moots RJ, Luo Z, DeMasi R, Soma K, Zhang R, Takiya LJTL (2017) Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib with methotrexate, and adalimumab with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (ORAL Strategy): a phase 3b/4, double-blind, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial. 390:457-468[2]Taylor PC, Keystone EC, van der Heijde D et al (2017) Baricitinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis. N Engl J Med 376:652-662[3]Fleischmann R, Pangan AL, Mysler E, Bessette L, Peterfy C, Durez P, Ostor A, Li Y, Zhou Y, Othman AA (2018) A phase 3, randomized, double-blind study comparing upadacitinib to placebo and to adalimumab, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to methotrexate. ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY. WILEY 111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA, pp[4]Combe B, Kivitz A, Tanaka Y, van der Heijde D, Matzkies F, Bartok B, Ye L, Guo Y, Tasset C, Sundy J (2019) LB0001 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF FILGOTINIB FOR PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS WITH INADEQUATE RESPONSE TO METHOTREXATE: FINCH1 PRIMARY OUTCOME RESULTS. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, ppDisclosure of Interests:None declared

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (MONARCH): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group phase III trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (5) ◽  
pp. 840-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerd R Burmester ◽  
Yong Lin ◽  
Rahul Patel ◽  
Janet van Adelsberg ◽  
Erin K Mangan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
End Point

ObjectivesTo compare efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who should not continue treatment with methotrexate (MTX) due to intolerance or inadequate response.MethodsMONARCH was a randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III superiority trial. Patients received sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w)) or adalimumab (40 mg q2w) monotherapy for 24 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in 28-joint disease activity score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at week 24.ResultsSarilumab was superior to adalimumab in the primary end point of change from baseline in DAS28-ESR (−3.28 vs −2.20; p<0.0001). Sarilumab-treated patients achieved significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response rates (sarilumab: 71.7%/45.7%/23.4%; adalimumab: 58.4%/29.7%/11.9%; all p≤0.0074) and had significantly greater improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (p=0.0037). Importantly, at week 24, more patients receiving sarilumab compared with adalimumab achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (7.1% vs 2.7%; nominal p=0.0468) and low disease activity (41.8% vs 24.9%; nominal p=0.0005, supplemental analysis). Adverse events occurred in 63.6% (adalimumab) and 64.1% (sarilumab) of patients, the most common being neutropenia and injection site reactions (sarilumab) and headache and worsening RA (adalimumab). Incidences of infections (sarilumab: 28.8%; adalimumab: 27.7%) and serious infections (1.1%, both groups) were similar, despite neutropenia differences.ConclusionsSarilumab monotherapy demonstrated superiority to adalimumab monotherapy by improving the signs and symptoms and physical functions in patients with RA who were unable to continue MTX treatment. The safety profiles of both therapies were consistent with anticipated class effects.Trial registration numberNCT02332590.

scholarly journals Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study

2017 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef S Smolen ◽  
Jung-Yoon Choe ◽  
Nenad Prodanovic ◽  
Jaroslaw Niebrzydowski ◽  
Ivan Staykov ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Transition Period ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Phase Iii Study ◽  
Transition Study ◽  
To Receive

ObjectivesEfficacy, safety and immunogenicity results from the phase III study of SB2, a biosimilar of reference infliximab (INF), were previously reported through 54 weeks. This transition period compared results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from INF to SB2 with those in patients who maintained treatment with INF or SB2.MethodsPatients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate treatment were randomised (1:1) to receive SB2 or INF at weeks 0, 2 and 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter until week 46. At week 54, patients previously receiving INF were rerandomised (1:1) to switch to SB2 (INF/SB2 (n=94)) or to continue on INF (INF/INF (n=101)) up to week 70. Patients previously receiving SB2 continued on SB2 (SB2/SB2 (n=201)) up to week 70. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were assessed up to week 78.ResultsEfficacy was sustained and comparable across treatment groups. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses between weeks 54 and 78 ranged from 63.5% to 72.3% with INF/SB2, 66.3%%–69.4% with INF/INF and 65.6%–68.3% with SB2/SB2. Treatment-emergent adverse events during this time occurred in 36.2%, 35.6% and 40.3%, respectively, and infusion-related reactions in 3.2%, 2.0% and 3.5%. Among patients who were negative for antidrug antibodies (ADA) up to week 54, newly developed ADAs were reported in 14.6%, 14.9% and 14.1% of the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups, respectively.ConclusionsThe efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles remained comparable among the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups up to week 78, with no treatment-emergent issues or clinically relevant immunogenicity after switching from INF to SB2.Trial registration numberNCT01936181; EudraCT number: 2012-005733-37.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document