scholarly journals POS0654 IMPACT OF CONCOMITANT GLUCOCORTICOIDS ON THE CLINICAL EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB IN PATIENTS WITH RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: AN AD HOC ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM THREE PHASE 3 STUDIES

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 567-568
Author(s):  
B. Combe ◽  
F. Buttgereit ◽  
A. Ostor ◽  
R. Xavier ◽  
A. Saraux ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Activity ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Three Phase ◽  
Clinical Responses ◽  
The Impact

Background:Glucocorticoid (GC) therapy has strong anti-inflammatory effects and helps slow radiographic progression in RA1; however, GCs can be associated with adverse events (AEs) such as infection, especially with long-term use and higher doses.Objectives:To evaluate the impact of baseline GCs on the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA) with or without concomitant conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs).Methods:In this ad hoc analysis of three Phase 3 studies, patients with inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR) receiving UPA 15 mg once daily (QD) or placebo (PBO) + csDMARDs in SELECT-NEXT, and MTX-IR/MTX-naïve patients receiving UPA 15 mg QD monotherapy or MTX monotherapy in SELECT-MONOTHERAPY/SELECT-EARLY, respectively, were included. Efficacy outcomes, including measures of remission and low disease activity (LDA) determined by DAS in 28 joints using CRP (DAS28[CRP]; <2.6/≤3.2) and Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI; ≤2.8/≤10), were assessed and stratified by baseline GC use. Patients were permitted to receive oral GCs ≤10 mg/day (prednisone equivalent) at baseline with no adjustment permitted until Week 24/26/48. Safety was reported as number and proportion of patients with AEs. Data were analyzed descriptively with no statistical comparisons between groups or doses.Results:Of 1,506 patients included in the analysis, 737 (48.9%) were receiving baseline GCs (mean dose 6.2 mg/day). Baseline characteristics were broadly similar across treatment groups; SELECT-EARLY, which enrolled MTX-naïve patients, generally had the shortest duration of RA and higher CRP levels. Across UPA treatment groups, concomitant GCs generally did not influence the proportions of patients achieving remission (Figure 1). In SELECT-NEXT, clinical responses with UPA 15 mg in combination with csDMARDs were similar irrespective of concomitant GC use (Figure 1). Within SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, responses in patients receiving UPA 15 mg without concomitant csDMARDs or GCs were higher than those in patients receiving MTX alone, but were numerically lower than in those receiving UPA 15 mg with GCs (Figure 1). However, this was not observed within SELECT-EARLY, where clinical responses in patients receiving UPA 15 mg monotherapy without GCs were higher than in those patients receiving UPA 15 mg with GCs for both DAS28(CRP) <2.6 (40.6% vs 29.9%, respectively) and CDAI ≤2.8 (20.0% vs 11.6%, respectively) (Figure 1). A similar trend was observed for LDA. Serious AEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, and AEs of special interest, including infections (such as herpes zoster), were broadly similar in the UPA groups irrespective of concomitant GC use (table of safety data will be presented).Conclusion:UPA 15 mg in combination with csDMARDs or as monotherapy was effective in achieving remission and LDA, irrespective of concomitant GC use. Safety of UPA, including incidence of infection, appeared largely unaffected by concomitant GC use.References:[1]Kirwan JR, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;1:CD006356.Acknowledgements:AbbVie funded this study and participated in the study design, research, analysis, data collection, interpretation of data, reviewing, and approval of the publication. All authors had access to relevant data and participated in the drafting, review, and approval of this publication. No honoraria or payments were made for authorship. Medical writing assistance was provided by Frances Smith, PhD, of 2 the Nth, which was funded by AbbVie.Disclosure of Interests:Bernard Combe Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Frank Buttgereit Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche, Andrew Ostor Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Paradigm, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma., Ricardo Xavier Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Alain Saraux Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Nordic, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai, Eli Lilly, Nordic, Sanofi, and UCB Pharma, Capucine DARIDON Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Kirsten Famulla Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Yanna Song Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Ivan Lagunes-Galindo Shareholder of: AbbVie, Employee of: AbbVie, Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB Pharma

scholarly journals EXPRESS: Efficacy and Safety of Tadalafil in a Pediatric Population with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Phase 3 randomized, Double Blind Placebo-Controlled Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 204589402110249
Author(s):  
David D Ivy ◽  
Damien Bonnet ◽  
Rolf MF Berger ◽  
Gisela Meyer ◽  
Simin Baygani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Significance Testing ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Statistical Significance Testing ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Pulmonary Arterial

Objective: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of tadalafil in pediatric patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Methods: This phase-3, international, randomized, multicenter (24 weeks double-blind placebo controlled period; 2-year, open-labelled extension period), add-on (patient’s current endothelin receptor antagonist therapy) study included pediatric patients aged <18 years with PAH. Patients received tadalafil 20 mg or 40 mg based on their weight (Heavy-weight: ≥40 kg; Middle-weight: ≥25—<40 kg) or placebo orally QD for 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was change from baseline in 6-minute walk (6MW) distance in patients aged ≥6 years at Week 24. Sample size was amended from 134 to ≥34 patients, due to serious recruitment challenges. Therefore, statistical significance testing was not performed between treatment groups. Results: Patient demographics and baseline characteristics (N=35; tadalafil=17; placebo=18) were comparable between treatment groups; median age was 14.2 years (6.2 to 17.9 years) and majority (71.4%, n=25) of patients were in HW cohort. Least square mean (SE) changes from baseline in 6MW distance at Week 24 was numerically greater with tadalafil versus placebo (60.48 [20.41] vs 36.60 [20.78] meters; placebo-adjusted mean difference [SD] 23.88 [29.11]). Safety of tadalafil treatment was as expected without any new safety concerns. During study period 1, two patients (1 in each group) discontinued due to investigator’s reported clinical worsening, and no deaths were reported. Conclusions: The statistical significance testing was not performed between the treatment groups due to low sample size, however, the study results show positive trend in improvement in non invasive measurements, commonly utilized by clinicians to evaluate the disease status for children with PAH. Safety of tadalafil treatment was as expected without any new safety signals.

scholarly journals AB0369 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF RITUXIMAB ORIGINATOR AND BIOSIMILAR IN PRIMARY SJÖGREN’S SYNDROME IN A REAL-LIFE SETTING

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1485.3-1485
Author(s):  
F. Carubbi ◽  
A. Alunno ◽  
P. Cipriani ◽  
V. Pavlych ◽  
C. DI Muzio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Activity ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Primary Sjögren’S Syndrome ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Real Life Setting ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Time Point

Background:Over the last 2 decades rituximab (RTX) has been widely used, albeit off-label, in primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS). Several studies reported that B-lymphocyte depletion with RTX is effective in this disease not only by reducing disease activity but also by affecting the inflammation and the lymphoid organization that occur in target tissues. With the recent release of several RTX biosimilars (bRTX) on the market, the demonstration of their interchangeability with RTX originator (oRTX) is required.Objectives:To compare efficacy and safety of oRTX and bRTX in pSS patients in a real-life setting.Methods:Clinical records of pSS patients referring to a tertiary rheumatology clinic were retrospectively evaluated. Patients having received at least 2 courses of either oRTX or bRTX (1000 mg IV infusion, repeated after 2 weeks -1 course- and the course repeated after 24 weeks) with complete data at baseline and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of treatment were enrolled. Disease activity was assessed with the EULAR SS disease activity index (ESSDAI) and its clinical version without the biological domain (ClinESSDAI). Patient-reported symptoms were assessed with the EULAR SS Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI).Results:Seven patients that received oRTX and 7 patients that received bRTX were enrolled. Baseline clinical features, including ESSDAI and ESSPRI were similar in the 2 treatment groups. Both compounds significantly reduced ESSDAI and ESSPRI as early as 3 months and no difference between the groups was observed at any time point (Figure 1). Of interest, ESSDAI slowly decreased until month 6 when the most pronounced reduction was observed. Conversely, ESSPRI dropped to its lowest values already at month 3. With regard to safety, at 12 months of follow-up no adverse event was observed in any of the treatment groups.Conclusion:At 12 months of follow-up, oRTX and bRTX display similar efficacy and safety profiles. The improvement of patient reported outcomes is faster than the improvement of disease activity with both compounds. Our data support interchangeability of oRTX and bRTX in pSS.References:[1]Carubbi F et al. Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15(5):R172[2]Carubbi F et al. Lupus. 2014;23(13):1337-49Figure 1 ESSDAI and ESSPRI values at every time point in the 2 treatment groups. Asterisks indicate p values <0.05 compared to the other treatment group at the same time pointDisclosure of Interests:Francesco Carubbi Speakers bureau: Francesco Carubbi received speaker honoraria from Abbvie and Celgene outside this work., Alessia Alunno: None declared, Paola Cipriani Grant/research support from: Actelion, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Actelion, Pfizer, Viktoriya Pavlych: None declared, claudia di muzio: None declared, Roberto Gerli: None declared, Roberto Giacomelli Grant/research support from: Actelion, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Roche, Actelion, BMS, MSD, Ely Lilly, SOBI, Pfizer

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab over 6 years: final results of the 4-year CARE-MS extension trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 175628642098213
Author(s):  
Alasdair J. Coles ◽  
Douglas L. Arnold ◽  
Ann D. Bass ◽  
Aaron L. Boster ◽  
D. Alastair S. Compston ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Activity ◽  
Disease Duration ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Brain Volume Loss ◽  
Disease Modifying Therapy ◽  
Core Study ◽  
Treatment Naïve ◽  
Multiple Sclerosis Patients ◽  
Extension Trial

Background: In the 2-year CARE-MS I and II trials, alemtuzumab 12 mg administered on 5 consecutive days at core study baseline and on 3 consecutive days 12 months later significantly improved outcomes versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (SC IFNB-1a) in relapsing–remitting multiple sclerosis patients. Here, we present the final 6-year CARE-MS extension trial results (CAMMS03409), and compare outcomes over 6 years in patients randomized to both treatment groups at core study baseline. Methods: Over a 4-year extension, alemtuzumab patients (alemtuzumab-only) received as-needed additional alemtuzumab (⩾12 months apart) for disease activity after course 2. SC IFNB-1a patients who entered the extension discontinued SC IFNB-1a and received 2 alemtuzumab 12 mg courses (IFN–alemtuzumab), followed by additional, as-needed, alemtuzumab. Results: Through year 6, 63% of CARE-MS I and 50% of CARE-MS II alemtuzumab-only patients received neither additional alemtuzumab nor other disease-modifying therapy, with lasting suppression of disease activity, improved disability, and slowing of brain volume loss (BVL). In CARE-MS I patients (treatment-naive; less disability; shorter disease duration), disease activity and BVL were significantly reduced in IFN–alemtuzumab patients, similar to alemtuzumab-only patients at year 6. Among CARE-MS II patients (inadequate response to prior treatment; more disability; longer disease duration), alemtuzumab significantly improved clinical and magnetic resonance imaging outcomes, including BVL, in IFN–alemtuzumab patients; however, disability outcomes were less favorable versus alemtuzumab-only patients. Safety profiles, including infections and autoimmunities, following alemtuzumab were similar between treatment groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the high efficacy of alemtuzumab over 6 years, with a similar safety profile between treatment groups. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00530348; NCT00548405; NCT00930553

scholarly journals POS0492 A MOLECULAR SIGNATURE RESPONSE CLASSIFIER PREDICTS THE LIKELIHOOD OF EULAR NON-RESPONSE TO TNF INHIBITOR THERAPIES IN RA: RESULTS FROM A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT ANALYSIS

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 478.2-479
Author(s):  
L. Zhang ◽  
C. van der Tog ◽  
A. den Broeder ◽  
T. Mellors ◽  
E. Connolly-Strong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Molecular Signature ◽  
Response Criteria ◽  
Treat To Target ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Tnf Inhibitor ◽  
Target Setting ◽  
The Impact

Background:Following RA treatment recommendations, most people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) begin targeted therapy with TNF inhibitors (TNFi), even though inadequate response to TNFi therapies is widespread. Treatment changes from one medication to the next are currently fueled by disease-activity measures and eventually result in disease control for most patients; however, this “trial-and-error” approach wastes precious time on ineffective treatments. A delay in reaching treat-to-target goals has a negative effect on patient burden and, possibly, disease progression.1 Useful predictors for TNFi response have been challenging to identify but a specific molecular signature response classifier (MSRC) test was shown to be predictive for inadequate response to TNFi therapies.2 The impact of such identification has the potential to result in improved patient outcomes, but further validation would be welcome, especially for response criteria other than ACR50, and in a stringent treat-to-target setting with lower baseline disease activity.Objectives:To validate the predictive value of the MSRC test in identifying those patients who do not meet EULAR good response criteria after 6 months of TNFi treatment.Methods:Data from a prospective cohort study conducted in the Sint Maartenskliniek (Nijmegen, the Netherlands) of RA patients who started adalimumab or etanercept TNFi as their first biologic were included.3 Baseline RNA samples and clinical assessments were used to identify patients who had a molecular signature1 of non-response to TNFi therapy. Outcomes were calculated at six months using DAS28-CRP-based EULAR good response, and high and low confidence responders and non-responders were identified using Monte Carlo simulation with 2,000 repeats and 70% precision cut off. Outcome measurements were blinded for test results. Treatment switch before 6 months was imputed as non-response. Odds ratios and area under the ROC curve (AUC) assessments were used to evaluate the ability of the MSRC test to predict inadequate response at 6 months against EULAR good response criteria.Results:A total of 68 out of 88 RA patients were identified to have a high-confidence response status and were included in analyses (Table 1). EULAR good response was observed in 45.5% (31/68) of patients. Patients were stratified according to detection of a molecular signature of non-response with an AUC of 0.61. The odds that a patient with the molecular signature of non-response at baseline failed to achieve a EULAR good response at 6 months was four times greater than that of a patient lacking the molecular signature (odds ratio 4.0, 95% confidence interval 1.2-13.3).Table 1.Patient demographicsCharacteristicRA patients (N = 68)Age, median (SD)57 (11)Female, n (%)43 (63.2)CCP positive, n (%)34 (50.0)RF positive, n (%)38 (55.9)Prescribed adalimumab at baseline, n (%)11 (16.2)Prescribed etanercept at baseline, n (%)57 (83.8)Conclusion:In this validation study, the molecular signature of non-response identified patients who did not fulfill the EULAR good response criteria to TNFi therapies. The patient selection process for this study had limitations; additional analysis in an alternative cohort would further verify the performance of the MSRC test. Nevertheless, the test, previously validated for ACR50, now has been validated using EULAR good response in a treat-to-target setting.References:[1]Schipper LG et al, Time to achieve remission determines time to be in remission. Arthritis Res Ther 201[2]Mellors T, et al. Clinical Validation of a Blood-Based Predictive Test for Stratification of Response to Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Therapies in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients. Network and Systems Medicine 2020[3]Tweehuysen L et al. Predictive value of ex-vivo drug-inhibited cytokine production for clinical response to biologic DMARD therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2019Disclosure of Interests:Lixia Zhang Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Celeste van der Tog: None declared, Alfons den Broeder Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Cellgene, Roche, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, Celltrion Sanofi, Gilead., Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Cellgene, Roche, Biogen, Lilly, Novartis, Celltrion Sanofi, Gilead., Ted Mellors Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Erin Connolly-Strong Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Johanna Withers Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Alex Jones Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Viatcheslav Akmaev Shareholder of: Scipher Medicine Corporation, Employee of: Scipher Medicine Corporation

scholarly journals POS0928 NETAKIMAB EFFICACY IN ANTI-TNF-NAIVE AND ANTI-TNF-EXPERIENCED PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE ANKYLOSING SPONDYLITIS: RESULTS OF SUBANALYSIS OF PHASE 3 ASTERA TRIAL

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 726.2-727
Author(s):  
S. Erdes ◽  
V. Mazurov ◽  
T. Dubinina ◽  
I. Gaydukova ◽  
A. Kundzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ankylosing Spondylitis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
P Value ◽  
Interleukin 17 ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Asas Criteria

Background:According to previous studies, the effectiveness of interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitors was higher in anti-TNF-naïve patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) [1,2]. Netakimab (NTK) is a humanized anti-IL-17A antibody approved for the treatment of AS, psoriatic arthritis, moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in Russia and Belarus.Objectives:To compare the efficacy of NTK in anti-TNF-naïve patients with anti-TNF-experienced patients with active AS at week 16 of therapy.Methods:ASTERA (NCT03447704) is an ongoing phase 3 placebo (PBO)-controlled clinical study, aimed at evaluating NTK efficacy in AS [3]. 228 adult patients with active AS (BASDAI ≥ 4) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 120 mg NTK or PBO subcutaneously at week 0,1,2 and then q2w. This analysis includes 112 patients in NTK group. Efficacy endpoints included ASAS20/40, ASAS5/6 and ASAS partial remission (PR) at week 16 of therapy.Results:28 (25.0%) of 112 patients in NTK group had previous inadequate response/intolerance to anti-TNF (anti-TNF-IR): 24 (21.4%) – one anti-TNF, and 4 (3.6%) – two anti-TNF. 84 (75.0%) patients were TNF-naive. Achievement of ASAS criteria response at week 16 was similar in both groups (Table 1).Table 1.Efficacy of NTK at week 16ParameterTNF-naïve (n = 84)anti-TNF-IR (n = 28)p-value*ASAS20, n (%)52 (61.9%)17 (60.7%)0.91ASAS40, n (%)35 (41.7%)11 (39.3%)0.82ASAS5/6, n (%)39 (46.4%)11 (39.3%)0.51ASAS(PR), n (%)15 (17.9%) 4 (14.3%)0.78*- Fisher’s exact testConclusion:NTK 120 mg provided sustained improvements in signs and symptoms of AS in anti-TNF-naive and anti-TNF-IR patients at 16 weeks of therapy.References:[1]Blair HA, Dhillon S. Secukinumab: A Review in Ankylosing Spondylitis. Drugs. 2016;76(10):1023-30.[2]Dougados M, et al. Efficacy and safety of ixekizumab through 52 weeks in two phase 3, randomised, controlled clinical trials in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (COAST-V and COAST-W). Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79(2):176-185.[3]Mazurov VI, et al. Efficacy and safety of Netakimab, anti-IL-17A monoclonal antibody, in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Results of phase III international, multicenter, randomized double-blind clinical trial BCD-085-5/ASTERA. Nauchno-Practicheskaya Revmatologia=Rheumatology Science and Practice. 2020;58 (4):376–386 (In Russ).Acknowledgements:This study was sponsored by JSC BIOCAD.Disclosure of Interests:Shandor Erdes: None declared, V Mazurov: None declared, Tatiana Dubinina: None declared, Inna Gaydukova Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Biocad, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz, Alena Kundzer: None declared, Nikolaj Soroka: None declared, Anna Eremeeva Employee of: Biocad

scholarly journals On the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, certainties and uncertainties

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-24
Author(s):  
Ana Cecilia Amado Xavier de Oliveira ◽  
◽  
Isabella Fernandes Delgado ◽  
Francisco José Roma Paumgartten ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Degree Of Protection ◽  
Overwhelming Evidence ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Site Pain

Introduction: The COVID-19 vaccines in use (inactivaded virus, encapsulated m-RNA, non-replicating adenovirus-vectored DNA) were clinically tested in randomized placebocontrolled phase-3 studies. Objective: To address certainties and uncertainties about safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines that were approved for use in various countries. Method: The evidence provided by clinical studies on the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines was critically appraised. Results: COVID-19 vaccines proved to be efficacious and safe in clinical trials. Adverse events were mostly those of minor severity commonly noted with other vaccines such as injection site pain, mild flu-like symptoms, headache and asthenia. Although being very rare, anaphylaxis-like reactions were noted with mRNA vaccines. Uncertainties regarding vaccine effectiveness refer mainly to the (long-term) duration of immunity provided by vaccination, the degree of protection conferred to elderly people, and how effective vaccines are against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants. There are few uncertainties about vaccine safety including the absence of clinical trial data in pregnant women (and the impact on the unborn child), children and adolescents. Conclusions: Notwithstanding the knowledge gaps about effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (to be further addressed by observational studies), there is overwhelming evidence that public health benefits of vaccination by far outweigh any foreseeable risk.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document