scholarly journals Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of GP2015, an etanercept biosimilar, compared with the reference etanercept in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week results from the comparative phase III, randomised, double-blind EQUIRA study

RMD Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e000757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Matucci-Cerinic ◽  
Yannick Allanore ◽  
Arthur Kavanaugh ◽  
Maya H Buch ◽  
Hendrik Schulze-Koops ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Treatment Period ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Period 2 ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
The Difference

ObjectivesTo demonstrate the equivalent efficacy and compare the safety and immunogenicity of an etanercept biosimilar, GP2015, with reference etanercept (ETN) in patients with moderate-to-severe, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), characterised by an inadequate response to synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).MethodsIn the EQUIRA study, eligible patients (n=376) were randomised 1: 1 to 50  mg GP2015 or ETN subcutaneously, once weekly, for 24 weeks (treatment period 1). Patients from both groups, with at least moderate European League Against Rheumatism response at week 24, received GP2015 up to week 48 (treatment period 2). All patients continued to receive concomitant methotrexate at a stable dose (10–25  mg/week) until end of the study. The 24-week results are presented here.ResultsEquivalent efficacy between GP2015 and ETN was demonstrated if the 95% CI for the difference in disease activity score 28-joint count C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) change from baseline to week 24 between treatment arms was contained within the prespecified equivalence margin range of −0.6 to 0.6. The least squares mean difference (GP2015–ETN) in change from baseline in DAS28-CRP up to week 24 was −0.07 (95% CI −0.26 to 0.12 [primary endpoint)]. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable between GP2015 (43.5%) and ETN (49.5%). None of the GP2015-treated patients developed neutralising anti-drug antibodies (NAbs) whereas 1.6% and 0.6% of patients in ETN group were NAb positive at weeks 4 and 12, respectively.ConclusionIn patients with RA who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, GP2015 demonstrated a similar efficacy and a comparable safety and immunogenicity profile with ETN.Trial registrationNCT02638259.

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 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 Efficacy and safety of bimekizumab as add-on therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with inadequate response to certolizumab pegol: a proof-of-concept study

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (8) ◽  
pp. 1033-1040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Glatt ◽  
Peter C Taylor ◽  
Iain B McInnes ◽  
Georg Schett ◽  
Robert Landewé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Dual Inhibition

ObjectiveEvaluate the efficacy and safety of dual neutralisation of interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F with bimekizumab, a monoclonal IgG1 antibody, in addition to certolizumab pegol (CZP) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response (IR) to certolizumab pegol.MethodsDuring this phase 2a, double-blind, proof-of-concept (PoC) study (NCT02430909), patients with moderate-to-severe RA received open-label CZP 400 mg at Weeks 0, 2 and 4, and 200 mg at Week 6. Patients with IR at Week 8 (Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28(CRP))>3.2) were randomised 2:1 to CZP (200 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W)) plus bimekizumab (240 mg loading dose then 120 mg Q2W) or CZP plus placebo. The primary efficacy and safety variables were change in DAS28(CRP) between Weeks 8 and 20 and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsOf 159 patients enrolled, 79 had IR at Week 8 and were randomised to CZP plus bimekizumab (n=52) or CZP plus placebo (n=27). At Week 20, there was a greater reduction in DAS28(CRP) in the CZP-IR plus bimekizumab group compared with the CZP-IR plus placebo group (99.4% posterior probability). The most frequent TEAEs were infections and infestations (CZP plus bimekizumab, 50.0% (26/52); CZP plus placebo, 22.2% (6/27)).ConclusionsPoC was confirmed based on the rapid decrease in disease activity achieved with 12 weeks of CZP plus bimekizumab. No unexpected or new safety signals were identified when neutralising IL-17A and IL-17F in patients with RA concomitantly treated with CZP, but the rate of TEAEs was higher with dual inhibition.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety results from a randomized double-blind study comparing proposed biosimilar ABP 798 with rituximab reference product in subjects with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (11) ◽  
pp. 3341-3352
Author(s):  
Gerd Burmester ◽  
Edit Drescher ◽  
Pawel Hrycaj ◽  
David Chien ◽  
Zhiying Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Reference Product ◽  
Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Transition ◽  
Anti Cd20

Abstract Background/objectives ABP 798 is a proposed biosimilar to the originator biologic rituximab, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody. This comparative clinical study evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and efficacy of ABP 798 versus rituximab reference product (RP) in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Adults with moderate-to-severe RA with an inadequate response or intolerance to other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs including 1 or more tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapies (n = 311) received ABP 798, US-sourced rituximab RP (rituximab US), or EU-sourced rituximab RP (rituximab EU) (1000 mg, 2 weeks apart). At week 24, ABP 798- or rituximab EU-treated subjects received a second dose of the same treatment, while rituximab US-treated subjects transitioned to receive ABP 798. The key efficacy endpoint was DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24. Other efficacy endpoints included DAS28-CRP at other time points; ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 criteria; and hybrid ACR. The rituximab RP groups were pooled for all efficacy endpoints since PK equivalence had been established between rituximab US and rituximab EU. Results Clinical equivalence between ABP 798 and rituximab RP was established as the 90% confidence interval for DAS28-CRP change from baseline at week 24 fell within the prespecified equivalence margin (− 0.6, 0.6). Safety and immunogenicity profiles of ABP 798 were comparable across treatment groups and not affected by single transition from RP to ABP 798. Conclusions Clinical equivalence in terms of efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity was established between ABP 798 and rituximab RP in this comparative clinical trial in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. Key Points• ABP 798 provided similar efficacy as rituximab reference product (RP) in patients with moderate-severe rheumatoid arthritis.• The safety and immunogenicity profiles for ABP 798 were similar to those for the rituximab RP.• The single transition from rituximab RP to ABP 798 did not show differences in efficacy, safety, or immunogenicity.

Efficacy and safety of the selective co-stimulation modulator abatacept following 2 years of treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 547-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
M C Genovese ◽  
M Schiff ◽  
M Luggen ◽  
J-C Becker ◽  
R Aranda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Sleep Problems ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Sf 36

Objective:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of abatacept during 2 years of the ATTAIN (Abatacept Trial in Treatment of Anti-TNF INadequate responders) trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.Methods:Patients completing the 6-month, double-blind period were eligible to enter the long-term extension; patients received abatacept ∼10 mg/kg, plus disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Safety and efficacy (American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria responses, DAS28 (C-reactive protein), HAQ-DI, SF-36, Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Problems Index, fatigue VAS) were assessed through 2 years.Results:317 patients (218 from the abatacept and 99 from the placebo group) entered and 222 (70%) completed 18 months of long-term extension treatment. The incidence and type of adverse events were consistent between the double-blind and cumulative (double-blind plus long-term extension) periods. Rates of serious adverse events were 25.6 and 23.4 per 100 patient-years in the double-blind versus cumulative period. At 6 months and 2 years, using non-responder analyses, ACR responses in abatacept-treated patients were: ACR 20, 59.4% and 56.2%; ACR 50, 23.5% and 33.2%; ACR 70, 11.5% and 16.1%; HAQ-DI responses were 54.4% and 47.9%. At 6 months and 2 years, using post-hoc as-observed analyses, the percentage of patients (95% confidence interval) achieving DAS28 (C-reactive protein) low disease activity score (⩽3.2) and DAS28 (C-reactive protein)-defined remission (<2.6) increased from 18.3% (13.0, 23.5) to 32.0% (24.6, 39.4) and 11.1% (6.8, 15.3) to 20.3% (13.9, 26.6). Clinically meaningful improvements in SF-36, pain, fatigue and sleep problems were also maintained throughout the 2 years of abatacept treatment.Conclusion:No unique safety observations were reported during open-label exposure. Improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis, physical function and health-related quality of life observed after 6 months, were maintained throughout the 2 years in this population with difficult-to-treat disease.Trial registration number:NCT00124982.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of peficitinib (ASP015K) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional DMARDs: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial (RAJ3)

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (10) ◽  
pp. 1320-1332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiya Tanaka ◽  
Tsutomu Takeuchi ◽  
Sakae Tanaka ◽  
Atsushi Kawakami ◽  
Manabu Iwasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Conventional Dmards

ObjectivesTo investigate the efficacy and safety of peficitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsIn this double-blind phase III study, patients with RA and an inadequate response to prior disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were randomised to peficitinib 100 mg once daily, peficitinib 150 mg once daily, placebo or open-label etanercept for 52 weeks’ treatment; placebo-treated patients were switched at week 12 to peficitinib 100 or 150 mg once daily. The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response at week 12/early termination (ET). Secondary endpoints (assessed throughout) included ACR20, ACR50 and ACR70 response, changes from baseline in disease activity scores (DAS)28 and ACR core parameters, adverse events (AEs) and changes in clinical or laboratory measurements.ResultsIn total, 507 patients received treatment. ACR20 response rates at week 12/ET were significantly higher in the peficitinib 100 mg (57.7%) and 150 mg (74.5%) groups versus placebo (30.7%) (p<0.001). ACR50/70 response rates were also higher for both peficitinib doses versus placebo. Improvements in ACR response were maintained until week 52. Changes from baseline in DAS28-C-reactive protein/erythrocyte sedimentation rate and the ACR core set were significantly greater for both peficitinib doses versus placebo at week 12/ET (p<0.001). AE incidence was similar across treatment arms. Incidence of serious infection and herpes zoster-related disease was higher with peficitinib versus placebo, but with no clear dose-dependent increase.ConclusionsIn patients with RA and inadequate response to DMARDs, peficitinib 100 mg once daily or 150 mg once daily was efficacious in reducing RA symptoms and was well tolerated compared with placebo.Trial registration numberNCT02308163.

scholarly journals Filgotinib versus placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate: a phase III randomised clinical trial

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2020-219214
Author(s):  
Bernard Combe ◽  
Alan Kivitz ◽  
Yoshiya Tanaka ◽  
Désirée van der Heijde ◽  
J Abraham Simon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Double Blind

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1-preferential inhibitor filgotinib versus placebo or tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite ongoing treatment with methotrexate (MTX).MethodsThis 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled phase III trial evaluated once-daily oral filgotinib in patients with RA randomised 3:3:2:3 to filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) or filgotinib 100 mg (FIL100), subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg biweekly, or placebo (through week 24), all with stable weekly background MTX. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Additional efficacy outcomes were assessed sequentially. Safety was assessed from adverse events and laboratory abnormalities.ResultsThe proportion of patients (n=1755 randomised and treated) achieving ACR20 at week 12 was significantly higher for FIL200 (76.6%) and FIL100 (69.8%) versus placebo (49.9%; treatment difference (95% CI), 26.7% (20.6% to 32.8%) and 19.9% (13.6% to 26.2%), respectively; both p<0.001). Filgotinib was superior to placebo in key secondary endpoints assessing RA signs and symptoms, physical function and structural damage. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab in terms of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C reactive protein ≤3.2 at week 12 (p<0.001); FIL100 did not achieve non-inferiority. Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were comparable among active treatment arms.ConclusionsFilgotinib improved RA signs and symptoms, improved physical function, inhibited radiographic progression and was well tolerated in patients with RA with inadequate response to MTX. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab.Trial registration numberNCT02889796.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of peficitinib (ASP015K) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (RAJ4) in Japan

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (10) ◽  
pp. 1305-1319 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tsutomu Takeuchi ◽  
Yoshiya Tanaka ◽  
Sakae Tanaka ◽  
Atsushi Kawakami ◽  
Manabu Iwasaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Japanese Patients ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Tolerability Profile ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Once Daily

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor peficitinib versus placebo in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodsIn this multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase III study, patients with RA and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo, peficitinib 100 mg once daily or peficitinib 150 mg once daily with MTX for 52 weeks. Based on baseline randomisation, at week 12, non-responders receiving placebo were switched to peficitinib until the end of treatment; the remaining patients were switched to peficitinib at week 28. Primary efficacy variables were American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20 response rate at week 12/early termination (ET) and change from baseline in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (mTSS) at week 28/ET.Results519 patients were randomised and treated. Significantly more (p<0.001) peficitinib (58.6%, 100 mg; 64.4%, 150 mg) than placebo (21.8%) recipients achieved ACR20 response at week 12/ET. Significantly lower (p<0.001) mean changes from baseline in mTSS at week 28/ET occurred in peficitinib (1.62, 100 mg; 1.03, 150 mg) than placebo (3.37) recipients. Peficitinib was associated with haematological and biochemical parameter changes, and increased incidence of serious infections and herpes zoster-related disease. One death from suicide occurred in a patient in the placebo group after switching to peficitinib 100 mg.ConclusionsIn Japanese patients with RA and inadequate response to MTX, peficitinib demonstrated significant superiority versus placebo in reducing RA symptoms and suppressing joint destruction. Peficitinib had an acceptable safety and tolerability profile, with no new safety signals compared with other JAK inhibitors.Trial registration numberNCT02305849.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of NI-0101, an anti-toll-like receptor 4 monoclonal antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis after inadequate response to methotrexate: a phase II study

2019 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 316-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Monnet ◽  
Ernest H Choy ◽  
Iain McInnes ◽  
Tamta Kobakhidze ◽  
Kathy de Graaf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Immune Complexes ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Toll Like Receptor ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Subgroup Analyses

ObjectivesAnti-citrullinated protein antibodies (ACPAs) form immune complexes with citrullinated proteins binding toll-like receptor (TLR) 4, which has been proposed as a mediator of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). NI-0101 is a first-in-class humanised monoclonal antibody blocking TLR4, as confirmed by inhibition of in vivo lipopolysaccharide-induced cytokine release in healthy volunteers. This study was design to confirm preclinical investigations supporting a biomarker-driven approach for treatment of patients with RA who present positive for these immune complexes.MethodsPlacebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised (2:1) trial of the tolerability and efficacy of NI-0101 (5 mg/kg, every 2 weeks for 12 weeks) versus placebo in ACPA-positive RA patients with inadequate response to methotrexate. Efficacy measures included Disease Activity Score (28-joint count) with C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP), European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) good and moderate responses, and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20, ACR50 and ACR70 responses. Subgroup analyses defined on biomarkers were conducted. Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety were reported.Results90 patients were randomised (NI-0101 (61) and placebo (29)); 86 completed the study. No significant between-group difference was observed for any of the efficacy endpoints. Subgroup analyses using baseline parameters as covariants did not reveal any population responding to NI-0101. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 51.7% of patients who received placebo versus 52.5% for NI-0101.ConclusionsWe demonstrate for the first time that in RA, a human immune-mediated inflammatory disease, blocking the TLR4 pathway alone does not improve disease parameters. Successful targeting of innate immune pathways in RA may require broader and/or earlier inhibitory approaches.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document