scholarly journals Randomised study of PF-06410293, an adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar, compared with reference ADL for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis: results from weeks 26–52, including a treatment switch from reference ADL to PF-06410293

RMD Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. e001578
Author(s):  
Roy M Fleischmann ◽  
Daniel F Alvarez ◽  
Amy E Bock ◽  
Carol Cronenberger ◽  
Ivana Vranic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Response Rates ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Randomised Study ◽  
Treatment Switch

ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL) PF-06410293 (ADL-PF; adalimumab-afzb) versus EU-sourced reference ADL (ADL-EU) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on longer-term treatment and after being switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF.MethodsIn this multinational, double-blind study, patients with active RA were initially randomised to ADL-PF or ADL-EU for 26 weeks (treatment period (TP) 1). At the start of TP2 (weeks 26–52), patients in the ADL-EU arm were blindly re-randomised 1:1 to remain on ADL-EU (ADL-EU/ADL-EU; n=135) or switched to ADL-PF (ADL-EU/ADL-PF; n=134); patients receiving ADL-PF continued blinded treatment (ADL-PF/ADL-PF; n=283).ResultsThe American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response rates were comparable between treatment groups at all visits during TP2. At week 52, ACR20 response rates were 82.7% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 79.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 84.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF). Other measures of deep response (ACR50/70, ACR/EULAR-defined remission, EULAR good response, and Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints Based on High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein <2.6) and Health Assessment Questionnaire−Disability Index were maintained over TP2 and comparable between groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 43.5% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 44.4% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 38.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF) of patients; there were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety profiles between groups. The percentage of patients who were antidrug antibody positive was comparable overall among ADL-PF/ADL-PF (47.3%), ADL-EU/ADL-EU (54.1%) and ADL-EU/ADL-PF (45.9%).ConclusionsThe similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of ADL-PF and ADL-EU, maintained up to week 52, were unaffected by blinded treatment switch from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at week 26.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480153; EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29.

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 Randomised Double-Blind Trial of Combination Antibiotic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Smith ◽  
Caroline Doré ◽  
Peter Charles ◽  
Alena Vallance ◽  
Tara Potier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Active Treatment ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Good Evidence ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Significant Difference

Objective. A combination of intravenous clindamycin and oral tetracycline has been used for many years as a treatment for active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), despite the absence of good evidence for its efficacy. A single-blind pilot study of this therapy suggested that a double-blind placebo-controlled trial was warranted.Methods. Patients with active RA were randomised in a 2 : 1 ratio to receive active treatment or placebo for 25 weeks. The active treatment consisted of intravenous clindamycin in a reducing regime, and oral tetracycline twice daily three times a week. 50 patients were to be recruited. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients achieving an ACR20 response.Results. An interim statistical analysis was performed after 20 patients had completed the study. Two patients in the active group achieved an ACR20 response, with none in the placebo group (NS). There was a better ESR20 response in the placebo group (P=.02). There were no other significant differences between the groups. The results indicated that it was unlikely that a significant difference in ACR20 response would emerge if the remaining 30 patients were recruited. The trial was therefore halted.Conclusion. This antibiotic regime is unlikely to be a valuable therapy for active rheumatoid arthritis.

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.

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 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 Filgotinib in combination with methotrexate or as monotherapy versus methotrexate monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and limited or no prior exposure to methotrexate: the phase 3, randomised controlled FINCH 3 trial

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2020-219213
Author(s):  
René Westhovens ◽  
William F C Rigby ◽  
Désirée van der Heijde ◽  
Daniel W T Ching ◽  
William Stohl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology

ObjectivesTo investigate efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1 inhibitor filgotinib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with limited or no prior methotrexate (MTX) exposure.MethodsThis 52-week, phase 3, multicentre, double-blind clinical trial (NCT02886728) evaluated once-daily oral filgotinib in 1252 patients with RA randomised 2:1:1:2 to filgotinib 200 mg with MTX (FIL200 +MTX), filgotinib 100 mg with MTX (FIL100 +MTX), filgotinib 200 mg monotherapy (FIL200), or MTX. The primary endpoint was proportion achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 24.ResultsThe primary endpoint was achieved by 81% of patients receiving FIL200+ MTX versus 71% receiving MTX (p<0.001). A significantly greater proportion treated with FIL100+ MTX compared with MTX achieved an ACR20 response (80%, p=0.017) at week 24. Significant improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index was seen at week 24; least-squares mean change from baseline was −1.0 and −0.94 with FIL200+MTX and FIL100+MTX, respectively, versus −0.81 with MTX (p<0.001, p=0.008, respectively). Significantly higher proportions receiving FIL200+MTX (54%) and FIL100+MTX (43%) achieved DAS28(CRP) <2.6 versus MTX (29%) (p<0.001 for both) at week 24. Hierarchical testing stopped for comparison of ACR20 for FIL200 monotherapy (78%) versus MTX (71%) at week 24 (p=0.058). Adverse event rates through week 52 were comparable between all treatments.ConclusionsFIL200+MTX and FIL100+MTX both significantly improved signs and symptoms and physical function in patients with active RA and limited or no prior MTX exposure; FIL200 monotherapy did not have a superior ACR20 response rate versus MTX. Filgotinib was well tolerated, with acceptable safety compared with MTX.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document