scholarly journals Effects of BI 655064, an antagonistic anti-CD40 antibody, on clinical and biomarker variables in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIa study

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 754-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sudha Visvanathan ◽  
Stefan Daniluk ◽  
Rafał Ptaszyński ◽  
Ulf Müller-Ladner ◽  
Meera Ramanujam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Bone Resorption ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Nuclear Factor Κb ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Autoantibody Production ◽  
Bone Resorption Markers

ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety, efficacy and therapeutic mechanism of BI 655064, an antagonistic anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR).MethodsIn total, 67 patients were randomised to receive weekly subcutaneous doses of 120 mg BI 655064 (n=44) or placebo (n=23) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug.ResultsAt week 12, the primary endpoint was not met, with 68.2% of patients treated with BI 655064 achieving an ACR20 vs 45.5% with placebo (p=0.064); using Bayesian analysis, the posterior probability of seeing a difference greater than 35% was 42.9%. BI 655064 was associated with greater changes in CD40–CD40L pathway-related markers, including reductions in inflammatory and bone resorption markers (interleukin-6, matrix metalloproteinase-3, receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand), concentration of autoantibodies (immunoglobulin [Ig]G rheumatoid factor [RF], IgM RF, IgA RF) and CD95+ activated B-cell subsets. No serious adverse events (AEs) related to BI 655064 treatment or thromboembolic events occurred; reported AEs were mainly of mild intensity.ConclusionAlthough blockade of the CD40–CD40L pathway with BI 655064 in MTX-IR patients with RA resulted in marked changes in clinical and biological parameters, including reductions in activated B-cells, autoantibody production and inflammatory and bone resorption markers, with a favourable safety profile, clinical efficacy was not demonstrated in this small phase IIa study.Trial registration numberNCT01751776

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).

scholarly journals Long-term safety, efficacy and inhibition of radiographic progression with abatacept treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: 3-year results from the AIM trial

2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (10) ◽  
pp. 1826-1830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel M Kremer ◽  
Anthony S Russell ◽  
Paul Emery ◽  
Carlos Abud-Mendoza ◽  
Jacek Szechinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Radiographic Progression ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Inadequate Responders

ObjectiveTo evaluate abatacept treatment over 3 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to methotrexate (MTX).MethodsPatients randomised to abatacept or placebo (+MTX) during the 1-year double-blind period of the Abatacept in Inadequate responders to Methotrexate (AIM) trial received open-label abatacept (+MTX) in the long-term extension (LTE). Safety was assessed for patients who received ≥1 dose of abatacept, regardless of randomisation group. Efficacy was assessed for patients randomised to abatacept who entered the LTE.Results433 and 219 patients were randomised and treated with abatacept or placebo, respectively; 378 and 161 entered the LTE. At year 3, 440/539 patients were ongoing. No unexpected safety events were observed in the LTE. By year 3, incidence rates of adverse event and serious adverse events were 249.8/100 and 15.1/100 patient-years, respectively. Incidence rates were generally stable over time. At year 3, 84.8%, 63.4% and 37.5% of patients achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 20, 50 and 70, respectively, compared with 82.3%, 54.3% and 32.4% of patients at year 1. Mean changes in Genant-modified Sharp scores were reduced progressively over 3 years, with significantly greater inhibition during year 3 compared with year 2 (p=0.022 for total score).ConclusionIn MTX-inadequate responders with RA, abatacept provided consistent safety and sustained efficacy over 3 years. The data suggest an increasing inhibitory disease-modifying effect on radiographic progression.

SAT0151 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND PRIOR INADEQUATE RESPONSE OR INTOLERANCE TO BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS (SELECT-CHOICE): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1015-1016
Author(s):  
A. Rubbert-Roth ◽  
J. Enejosa ◽  
A. Pangan ◽  
R. Xavier ◽  
B. Haraoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Biologic Dmards

Background:Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible, selective JAK 1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The efficacy/safety of UPA has been demonstrated in phase 3 studies, including superiority to adalimumab in patients (pts) with prior inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.1-4Objectives:To assess the efficacy/safety of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) in pts with prior IR or intolerance to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).Methods:Pts were randomized to once daily UPA 15 mg or intravenous ABA (at Day 1, Weeks [Wks] 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 [< 60 kg: 500 mg; 60-100 kg: 750 mg; >100 kg: 1,000 mg]), with all pts continuing background stable csDMARDs. The study was double-blind for 24 wks. Starting at Wk 12, pts who did not achieve ≥20% improvement from baseline (BL) in both tender and swollen joint counts at two consecutive visits, had background medication(s) adjusted or initiated. The primary endpoint was change from BL in DAS28(CRP) at Wk 12 (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority of UPA vs ABA was tested using the 95% CI of treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 0.6. The two key secondary endpoints at Wk 12 were change from BL in DAS28(CRP) and the proportion of pts achieving clinical remission (CR) based on DAS28(CRP), defined as DAS28(CRP) <2.6. Both endpoints were to demonstrate the superiority of UPA vs. ABA. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported up to Wk 24 for all pts who received at least one dose of study drug.Results:Of 612 pts treated; 67% of pts had received 1 prior bDMARD, 22% received 2 prior bDMARDs, and 10% received ≥ 3 prior bDMARDs. 549 (90%) completed 24 wks of treatment. Common reasons for study drug discontinuation were AEs (UPA, 3.6%; ABA, 2.6%) and withdrawal of consent (UPA, 1.7%; ABA, 2.6%).Non-inferiority and superiority were met for UPA vs ABA at Wk 12 for change from BL in DAS28(CRP) (-2.52 vs -2.00; -0.52 [-0.69, -0.35]; p <0.001 for UPA vs ABA). UPA also demonstrated superiority to ABA in achieving DAS28(CRP) <2.6 (30.0% vs 13.3%; p <0.001 for UPA vs ABA; Figure 1). Improvements in disease activity and remission rates were maintained through Wk 24. The proportions of pts achieving low disease activity (defined as DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2), ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses were greater with UPA compared with ABA at Wk 12 (nominal p <0.05). More stringent outcome measures – CR, ACR50, and ACR70 responses - remained higher with UPA than ABA through Wk 24 (nominal p <0.05). Incidence of serious TEAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, hepatic disorders, and CPK elevations were numerically higher with UPA versus ABA (Figure 2). Eight cases of herpes zoster were reported (4 in each treatment arm). No malignancies were reported. One case of adjudicated MACE, two adjudicated cases of VTE (1 pt with DVT and 1 pt with PE; both pts had at least one risk factor for VTE), and one treatment-emergent death were reported with UPA.Conclusion:In RA pts with a prior IR or intolerance to bDMARDs, UPA demonstrated superior improvement in signs and symptoms vs ABA based on change in DAS28(CRP) and in achieving CR at Wk 12. The safety profile of UPA was consistent with the phase 3 RA studies with no new risks identified.References:[1]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2503-12[2]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(11):1788-800[3]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2513-24[4]Smolen JS, et al. Lancet. 2019;393(10188):2303-11Disclosure of Interests:Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Chugai, Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Roche, Boulos Haraoui Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB, Maureen Rischmueller Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Meyer-Squibb, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hospira, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ying Zhang Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Naomi Martin Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme

scholarly journals A randomised, double-blind trial to demonstrate bioequivalence of GP2013 and reference rituximab combined with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (9) ◽  
pp. 1598-1602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josef S Smolen ◽  
Stanley B Cohen ◽  
Hans-Peter Tony ◽  
Morton Scheinberg ◽  
Alan Kivitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Drug Infusion ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Time Curve ◽  
Factor Inhibitor ◽  
Registration Number

ObjectivesThe aim of this report is to demonstrate pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) equivalence as well as similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between GP2013, a biosimilar rituximab, and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response or intolerance to tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment.MethodsIn this multinational, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, 312 patients with active disease despite prior TNFi therapy were randomised to receive GP2013 or either the EU (RTX-EU) or the US (RTX-US) reference product, along with methotrexate (MTX) and folic acid. The primary endpoint was the area under the serum concentration–time curve from study drug infusion to infinity (AUC0-inf). Additional PK and PD parameters, along with efficacy, immunogenicity and safety outcomes were also assessed up to week 24.ResultsThe 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio of the AUCs were within the bioequivalence limits of 80% to 125% for all three comparisons; GP2013 versus RTX-EU: 1.106 (90% CI 1.010 to 1.210); GP2013 versus RTX-US: 1.012 (90% CI 0.925 to 1.108); and RTX-EU versus RTX-US: 1.093 (90% CI 0.989 to 1.208). Three-way PD equivalence of B cell depletion was also demonstrated. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar between GP2013 and RTX.ConclusionsThree-way PK/PD equivalence of GP2013, RTX-EU and RTX-US was demonstrated. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles were similar between GP2013 and RTX.Trial registration numberNCT01274182; Results.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of risankizumab for active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 1 trial

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2021-221019
Author(s):  
Lars Erik Kristensen ◽  
Mauro Keiserman ◽  
Kim Papp ◽  
Leslie McCasland ◽  
Douglas White ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Interleukin 23

ObjectiveTo evaluate risankizumab, a biological therapy that inhibits interleukin 23, in patients with active psoriatic arthritis (PsA) who have responded inadequately or are intolerant to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD).MethodsIn the randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind KEEPsAKE 1 trial, 964 patients with active PsA were randomised (1:1) to receive risankizumab 150 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and 16. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 24. Here, we report the results from the 24-week double-blind period; the open-label period with all patients receiving risankizumab is ongoing.ResultsAt week 24, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving risankizumab achieved the primary endpoint of ACR20 (57.3% vs placebo, 33.5%; p<0.001). Significant differences were also observed for risankizumab versus placebo for the first eight ranked secondary endpoints, including skin and nail psoriasis endpoints, minimal disease activity and resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis (p<0.001). Adverse events and serious adverse events were reported at similar rates in the risankizumab and placebo groups. Serious infections were reported for 1.0% and 1.2% of patients receiving risankizumab and placebo, respectively. There was one death in the risankizumab group (urosepsis deemed unrelated to the study drug).ConclusionsRisankizumab treatment results in significantly greater improvement of signs and symptoms of PsA compared with placebo and is well tolerated in patients with active PsA who have responded inadequately or are intolerant to ≥1 csDMARD.Trial registration numberNCT03675308.

scholarly journals CNTO6785, a Fully Human Antiinterleukin 17 Monoclonal Antibody, in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with Inadequate Response to Methotrexate: A Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Phase II, Dose-ranging Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip J. Mease ◽  
Slawomir Jeka ◽  
Juan Jose Jaller ◽  
Tasanee Kitumnuaypong ◽  
Worawit Louthrenoo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Human Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Similar Frequency ◽  
Dose Ranging

Objective.To evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and immunogenicity of CNTO6785, a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds to human interleukin 17A, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) therapy.Methods.This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study enrolled patients aged 18 to 80 years (inclusive) with active RA (≥ 6/66 swollen and ≥ 6/68 tender joints) who were refractory to MTX treatment (7.5–25 mg weekly, inclusive). The study duration was 38 weeks, containing a 10-week safety followup. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to receive CNTO6785 15, 50, 100, or 200 mg every 4 weeks + MTX or placebo + MTX. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response at Week 16.Results.There were no significant differences from placebo in the proportion of patients treated with CNTO6785 in the primary endpoint of ACR20 response at Week 16. There were no significant findings in any additional efficacy variables through Week 32. No dose-response relationships or specific patterns were observed in adverse event profiles among CNTO6785 treatment groups. Infections occurred with similar frequency across all groups, and injection site reactions were mild or moderate and did not demonstrate a dose-response relationship. Median serum CNTO6785 concentration increases through Week 38 were about dose-proportional; the incidence of neutralizing antidrug antibodies was 19.4% and was not associated with study drug dose level.Conclusion.CNTO6785 was well tolerated, but did not demonstrate clinical efficacy in patients with active RA with inadequate response to MTX.

scholarly journals Impact of age and sex on the efficacy of fremanezumab in patients with difficult-to-treat migraine: results of the randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3b FOCUS study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antoinette MaassenVanDenBrink ◽  
Gisela M. Terwindt ◽  
Joshua M. Cohen ◽  
Steve Barash ◽  
Verena Ramirez Campos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Medication Use ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Acute Medication ◽  
Preventive Medication ◽  
Age And Sex

Abstract Background Migraine prevalence is age and sex dependent, predominating in women in early and middle adulthood; however, migraine also represents a substantial burden for men and adults of all ages. Thus, understanding this burden and the efficacy of migraine preventive medications in both sexes and across age groups is critical. The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3b FOCUS study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2∆a) that selectively targets calcitonin gene-related peptide as a migraine preventive treatment for individuals with migraine and prior inadequate response to 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication classes. Here, we assessed the efficacy of fremanezumab in participants from FOCUS subgrouped by age (18–45 years and > 45 years) and sex. Methods In the FOCUS study, eligible participants were randomized (1:1:1) to 12 weeks of double-blind treatment with quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched monthly placebo. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated changes from baseline in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint of FOCUS) and other secondary and exploratory efficacy outcomes in prespecified age (18–45 and > 45 years) and sex subgroups. Results The modified intention-to-treat population (received ≥ 1 dose of study drug and had ≥ 10 days of postbaseline efficacy assessments for the primary endpoint) totaled 837 participants (18–45 years, n = 373; > 45 years, n = 464; male, n = 138; female, n = 699). Consistent reductions in monthly average number of migraine days during 12 weeks were observed, regardless of age (18–45 years: quarterly fremanezumab, − 4.1 days; monthly fremanezumab, − 4.7 days; placebo, − 0.9 days; P < 0.001; > 45 years: quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.6 days; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.7 days; placebo, − 0.3 days; P < 0.001) and sex (male: quarterly fremanezumab, − 4.1 days; monthly fremanezumab, − 4.6 days; placebo, − 0.3 days; P < 0.001; female: quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.6 days; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.9 days; placebo, − 0.6 days; P < 0.001). Fremanezumab also reduced monthly headache days of at least moderate severity, monthly days of acute medication use, and improved Migraine Disability Assessment scores across subgroups. Conclusions These results demonstrate the efficacy of fremanezumab in patients with difficult-to-treat migraine for reducing migraine and headache days, acute medication use, and disability, regardless of age or sex. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03308968 (FOCUS), registered October 13, 2017.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of risankizumab for active psoriatic arthritis: 24-week results from the randomised, double-blind, phase 3 KEEPsAKE 2 trial

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2021-221048
Author(s):  
Andrew Östör ◽  
Filip Van den Bosch ◽  
Kim Papp ◽  
Cecilia Asnal ◽  
Ricardo Blanco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

ObjectivesRisankizumab is an interleukin-23 inhibitor under study for the treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). The phase 3 KEEPsAKE 2 trial investigated the efficacy and safety of risankizumab versus placebo in patients with active PsA who had previous inadequate response or intolerance to ≤2 biological therapies (Bio-IR) and/or ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR). Results through week 24 are reported here.MethodsAdults with PsA who were Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR were randomised to receive subcutaneously administered risankizumab 150 mg or placebo at weeks 0, 4 and 16 during a 24-week, double-blind treatment period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology score (ACR20) at week 24. Secondary endpoints assessed key domains of PsA and patient-reported outcomes.ResultsA total of 444 patients (median age 53 years, range 23–84 years) were randomised to risankizumab (n=224) or placebo (n=220); 206 patients (46.5%) were Bio-IR. At week 24, a significantly greater proportion of patients receiving risankizumab achieved the primary endpoint of ACR20 (51.3% vs 26.5%, p<0.001) and all secondary endpoints (p<0.05) compared with placebo. Serious adverse events were reported for 4.0% and 5.5% of risankizumab-treated and placebo-treated patients, respectively; serious infections were reported for 0.9% and 2.3%, respectively.ConclusionTreatment with risankizumab resulted in significant improvements versus placebo in key disease outcomes and was well tolerated in patients with PsA who were Bio-IR and/or csDMARD-IR.Trial registration numberNCT03671148.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document