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

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.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab in patients with episodic and chronic migraine with documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 classes of migraine preventive medications over 6 months of treatment in the phase 3b FOCUS study

The Journal of Headache and Pain ◽

10.1186/s10194-021-01279-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Messoud Ashina ◽

Joshua M. Cohen ◽

Maja Galic ◽

Verena Ramirez Campos ◽

Steve Barash ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Migraine ◽

Medication Use ◽

Episodic Migraine ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Open Label ◽

Double Blind ◽

Moderate Severity ◽

Preventive Medication ◽

Open Label Extension ◽

Acute Headache

Abstract Background Fremanezumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody (IgG2Δa) selectively targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide and has proven efficacy for the preventive treatment of migraine. In this study, we evaluated the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability of monthly and quarterly fremanezumab. Methods Episodic migraine and chronic migraine patients completing the 12-week double-blind period of the FOCUS trial entered the 12-week open-label extension and received 3 monthly doses of fremanezumab (225 mg). Changes from baseline in monthly migraine days, monthly headache days of at least moderate severity, days of acute headache medication use, days with photophobia/phonophobia, days with nausea or vomiting, disability scores, and proportion of patients achieving a ≥50% or ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days were evaluated. Results Of the 807 patients who completed the 12-week double-blind treatment period and entered the open-label extension, 772 patients completed the study. In the placebo, quarterly fremanezumab, and monthly fremanezumab dosing regimens, respectively, patients had fewer average monthly migraine days (mean [standard deviation] change from baseline: − 4.7 [5.4]; − 5.1 [4.7]; − 5.5 [5.0]), monthly headache days of at least moderate severity (− 4.5 [5.0]; − 4.8 [4.5]; − 5.2 [4.9]), days per month of acute headache medication use (− 4.3 [5.2]; − 4.9 [4.6]; − 4.8 [4.9]), days with photophobia/phonophobia (− 3.1 [5.3]; − 3.4 [5.3]; − 4.0 [5.2]), and days with nausea or vomiting (− 2.3 [4.6]; − 3.1 [4.5]; − 3.0 [4.4]). During the 12-week open-label extension, 38%, 45%, and 46% of patients, respectively, achieved a ≥50% reduction and 16%, 15%, and 20%, respectively, achieved a ≥75% reduction in monthly migraine days. Disability scores were substantially improved in all 3 treatment groups. There were low rates of adverse events leading to discontinuation (<1%). Conclusion Fremanezumab demonstrated sustained efficacy up to 6 months and was well tolerated in patients with episodic migraine or chronic migraine and documented inadequate response to multiple migraine preventive medication classes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03308968 (FOCUS).

Download Full-text

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

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214729 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 78 (6) ◽

pp. 754-760 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

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

Download Full-text

Efficacy and safety of fremanezumab in patients with migraine and inadequate response to prior preventive treatment: subgroup analyses by country of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial

The Journal of Headache and Pain ◽

10.1186/s10194-021-01232-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Egilius L. H. Spierings ◽

Mikko Kärppä ◽

Xiaoping Ning ◽

Joshua M. Cohen ◽

Verena Ramirez Campos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Czech Republic ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Least Squares ◽

The United States ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Double Blind ◽

Monthly Average ◽

Preventive Medication ◽

Subgroup Analyses

Abstract Background The FOCUS study evaluated the efficacy of migraine preventive medications across different countries within the same patient population, particularly for patients with difficult-to-treat migraine. These prespecified subgroup analyses evaluated efficacy by country in the FOCUS study of fremanezumab in adults with episodic migraine or chronic migraine and documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication classes. Methods Overall, 838 participants were enrolled in the FOCUS study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3b study performed at 104 sites. For 12 weeks of double-blind treatment, patients were randomized (1:1:1) to quarterly fremanezumab, monthly fremanezumab, or matched placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the mean change from baseline in monthly average migraine days over 12 weeks of double-blind treatment, evaluated by country in these subgroup analyses. Results Of 14 countries contributing data, the Czech Republic (n = 188/838; 22%), the United States (n = 120/838; 14%), and Finland (n = 85/838; 10%) enrolled the most patients. Changes from baseline in monthly average migraine days over 12 weeks were significantly greater with fremanezumab versus placebo for patients in these countries: Czech Republic (least-squares mean difference versus placebo [95% confidence interval]: quarterly fremanezumab, − 1.9 [− 3.25, − 0.47]; P = 0.009; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.0 [− 4.39, − 1.59]; P < 0.001), the United States (quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.7 [− 5.77, − 1.58]; P < 0.001; monthly fremanezumab, − 4.2 [− 6.23, − 2.13]; P < 0.001), and Finland (quarterly fremanezumab, − 3.0 [− 5.32, − 0.63]; P = 0.014; monthly fremanezumab, − 3.9 [− 6.27, − 1.44]; P = 0.002). Results were comparable for the remaining 9 countries, with the least-squares mean difference versus placebo ranging from – 5.6 to – 2.4 with quarterly fremanezumab and from − 5.3 to − 1.5 with monthly fremanezumab. Incidences of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to discontinuation were low and comparable across countries and treatment groups. Conclusions Monthly and quarterly fremanezumab significantly reduced the monthly average number of migraine days versus placebo regardless of country and continent (North America versus Europe) in migraine patients with documented inadequate response to 2 to 4 migraine preventive medication classes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03308968.

Download Full-text

Subcutaneous Abatacept for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: Longterm Data from the ACQUIRE Trial

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.130112 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 41 (4) ◽

pp. 629-639 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

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).

Download Full-text

Efficacy of galcanezumab in patients with chronic migraine and a history of preventive treatment failure

Cephalalgia ◽

10.1177/0333102419847957 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 39 (8) ◽

pp. 931-944 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Dustin D Ruff ◽

Janet H Ford ◽

Antje Tockhorn-Heidenreich ◽

Matthew Sexson ◽

Sriram Govindan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chronic Migraine ◽

Migraine Headache ◽

Medication Use ◽

Domain Score ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Life Questionnaire ◽

Phase 3 ◽

Double Blind ◽

Acute Medication ◽

R Domain

Background Efficacy of galcanezumab in chronic migraine has been demonstrated in a pivotal Phase 3 study. Here, we assess efficacy in patients who have failed ≥2 and ≥1 prior migraine preventives for efficacy and/or safety reasons, and in those who never failed. Study design/methods REGAIN (NCT02614261) was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with chronic migraine. Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to receive placebo, galcanezumab 120 mg/240 mg once monthly during a double-blind treatment period lasting three months. Subgroup analyses were conducted among patients who failed ≥2 and ≥1 prior preventives and who never failed previously. Outcomes assessed were change from baseline in number of monthly migraine headache days, proportion of patients with ≥50% and ≥75% response (reduction in monthly migraine headache days), change in number of monthly migraine headache days with acute medication use and change in patient functioning per Migraine-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Role Function Restrictive (MSQ RF-R) domain score. Results Treatment with galcanezumab versus placebo resulted in significant improvements ( p < 0.01) in overall reduction (Months 1–3) from baseline in the number of monthly migraine headache days in patients with prior failures (LS mean change [SE]: ≥2 prior failures: galcanezumab 120 mg: −5.35 (0.71); galcanezumab 240 mg: −2.77 (0.66); placebo: −1.01 (0.54); ≥1 prior failures: galcanezumab 120 mg: −5.53 (0.60), galcanezumab 240 mg: −3.53 (0.59); placebo: −2.02 (0.49). Similarly, significant results were seen with galcanezumab versus placebo for ≥50% and ≥75% response rates, reductions in acute medication use and improvements in MSQ RF-R domain score. In the subgroup with no prior preventive failures, results were statistically significant for the 240 mg galcanezumab group versus placebo on all outcome measures, and for the 120 mg group on the reduction in migraine headache days with acute medication use. There was also a higher placebo response observed in the patients with no prior preventive failures. Conclusion Galcanezumab is consistently efficacious versus placebo in reducing monthly migraine headache days and several other key outcomes in patients with chronic migraine who have failed ≥2 or ≥1 preventives previously. In the subgroup with no prior failures, greater numerical differences were seen with galcanezumab, but statistical separation from placebo varied by dose and outcome. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier number NCT02614261.

Download Full-text

P210 Efficacy and safety of filgotinib for patients with RA with inadequate response to methotrexate: FINCH1 primary outcome results

Rheumatology ◽

10.1093/rheumatology/keaa111.205 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽

Author(s):

David Walker ◽

Bernard G Combe ◽

Alan J Kivitiz ◽

Yoshiya Tanaka ◽

Désirée van der Heijde ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Repeated Measures ◽

Study Drug ◽

Janus Kinase ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Stock Ownership ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Double Blind ◽

Mixed Effect ◽

Patient Reported

Abstract Background Filgotinib (FIL) is an oral, potent, selective Janus kinase 1 inhibitor that has shown good efficacy and was well tolerated for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FIL treatment in patients with RA who have had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Methods This Phase 3, double-blind, active- and placebo (PBO)-controlled study randomised patients with active RA (3:3:2:3) to FIL 200mg, FIL 100mg, adalimumab [ADA] 40mg every 2 weeks, or PBO daily for up to 52 weeks; results through week 24 are presented. Patients also received background MTX. Primary efficacy endpoint was proportion of patients achieving ACR20 at week 12; additional clinical assessments included ACR50 and ACR70 and DAS28-CRP score ≤3.2 and <2.6, and patient-reported outcomes including HAQ-DI. Safety endpoints included adverse event types and rates. Logistic regression was used for superiority test of FIL vs PBO for ACR response and other binary endpoints, while mixed-effect model for repeated measures (MMRM) were used for continuous endpoints. Non-inferiority test of FIL to ADA (preserving >50% of ADA response) was performed for DAS28-CRP ≤3.2 and <2.6. Results Of 1,759 patients randomised, 1,755 received study drug: 475 FIL 200mg; 480 FIL 100mg; 325 ADA; and 475 PBO, of which 89.5%, 90.4%, 88.9%, and 81.3%, respectively, completed 24 weeks of study drug. 81.8% were female, mean (standard deviation [SD]) duration of RA was 7.8 (7.6) years, and mean (SD) DAS28-CRP was 5.7 (0.9). At week 12, significantly more patients in the FIL 200mg and 100mg arms achieved an ACR20 improvement vs PBO (Table 1). More patients receiving FIL achieved ACR50 and ACR70 improvements, DAS28-CRP scores ≤3.2 and <2.6 and reported improvements in HAQ-DI scores versus PBO (Table 1). Non-inferiority of FIL 200mg to ADA was met based on DAS28-CRP ≤3.2. The FIL safety profile was consistent with prior studies through Week 24. Conclusion FIL 200mg and 100mg led to significant improvement in signs and symptoms of RA, prevented radiographic progression, improved physical function compared to PBO, and was well-tolerated. Efficacy of FIL 200mg was non-inferior to ADA based on DAS28-CRP ≤3.2. Disclosures D. Walker: Other; Received support from Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis and Roche. B.G. Combe: Honoraria; Received honoraria from AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Co., MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Sanofi and UCB. A.J. Kivitiz: Consultancies; Consultant to AbbVie, Celgene, Horizon, Jansses, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Genzyme, Sanofi, Regeneron, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion and Novartis. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Novartis. Y. Tanaka: Honoraria; Honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo, Astellas, Chugai, Eli Lilly ans Co., Pfizer, AbbVie, YL Biologics, BMS, Takeda, Misubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Eisai, Janssen, Teijin. Grants/research support; Grant support from Asahi-Kasei, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Takeda, Sanofi, BMS, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Ono, Astellas, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Abbvi and YL. D. van der Heijde: Corporate appointments; Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. Consultancies; Consultant for consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and UCB. F. Matzkies: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. B. Bartok: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. L. Ye: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc.. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Y. Guo: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. C. Tasset: Corporate appointments; Employee of Galapagos NV. J.S. Sundy: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. N. Mozaffarian: Corporate appointments; Employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Shareholder/stock ownership; Shareholder of Gilead Sciences, Inc. R.B.M. Landewé: Consultancies; Consultant for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Galapagos, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and UCB.. S. Bae: None. E.C. Keystone: Consultancies; Consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca Pharma, Biotest, BMS Canada, Celltrion, Crescendo, Bioscience, F.Hoffman-La Roche Inc., Genentech, Janssen, Eli Lilly and Co., Merck, Pfizer,, PuraPharm, Sandoz, Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsumg Bioepsis, and UCB. P. Nash: Consultancies; Consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Jansses, Pfizer, Roche, Lilly, Sanofi, MSD, Novartis, Celgene and Gilead.

Download Full-text

P173 Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib versus placebo and adalimumab in patients with active PsA and inadequate response to non-biologic DMARDs (SELECT-PSA-1): a double-blind, randomised controlled phase III trial

Rheumatology ◽

10.1093/rheumatology/keab247.168 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

Iain McInnes ◽

Jaclyn Anderson ◽

Marina Magrey ◽

Joseph F Merola ◽

Yi Liu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Study Drug ◽

Control Measures ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Musculoskeletal Symptoms ◽

Stock Ownership ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Research Support ◽

Double Blind ◽

Secondary Endpoints

Abstract Background/Aims Upadacitinib (UPA) is a JAK inhibitor under evaluation for PsA treatment. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of UPA vs placebo (PBO) and adalimumab (ADA) in patients with prior inadequate response (IR) or intolerance to ≥ 1 non-biologic DMARD. This research was previously presented at EULAR; published in Annals of Rheumatic Diseases. Methods Patients with active PsA (≥3 swollen, ≥3 tender joints), active/historical psoriasis, ≤2 non-bDMARDs were randomized 1:1:1:1 to once-daily UPA 15mg (UPA15), UPA 30mg (UPA30), ADA 40mg every other week, or PBO. Primary endpoint: proportion of patients achieving ACR20 for UPA vs PBO at Wk12. Secondary endpoints: change in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, SF-36-PCS (Wk12), sIGA of Psoriasis 0/1, PASI75, change in Self-Assessment of Psoriasis Symptoms (Wk16), change in modified Sharp/van der Heijde Score (mTSS), proportion patients achieving MDA, resolution of enthesitis (LEI=0) and dactylitis (LDI=0) (Wk24), non-inferiority and superiority vs ADA for ACR20, superiority for HAQ-DI, patient assessment of pain NRS (Wk12). Additional secondary endpoints: ACR50/70 at Wk12 and ACR20 at Wk2. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) through Wk24 reported for patients receiving ≥1 dose of study drug. Results 1,705 patients were randomised; 1,704 received study drug (mean age 50.8 yrs, mean duration of PsA diagnosis 6.1 yrs). 82% on ≥ 1 concomitant non-bDMARD. At Wk12, ACR20 rates were 70.6% with UPA15 and 78.5% with UPA30 vs 36.2% with PBO (p < 0.001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO) and 65.0% with ADA (non-inferiority, p < 0.001 for UPA15/30 vs ADA; superiority, p < 0.001 for UPA30 vs ADA). More patients achieved ACR50/70 with UPA15/30 vs PBO and UPA30 vs ADA. Improvements were observed with UPA15/30 vs PBO for all secondary endpoints and for UPA 15/30 vs ADA for HAQ-DI and UPA30 vs ADA for improvement in pain. At Wk24, change in mTSS was 0.25 for PBO, -0.04 for UPA15, 0.03 for UPA30, and 0.01 for ADA (p < 0.001 for UPA15/30 vs PBO). Rates of TEAEs and serious AEs, including serious infections, were similar in PBO, UPA15, and ADA arms and higher with UPA30. Herpes zoster rates were similar for PBO and UPA15/30. No MACE was reported with UPA. One malignancy occurred in both the PBO and UPA15 arms; 3 malignancies were reported in both UPA30 and ADA arms. VTE were reported in 1 PBO patient, 1 UPA30 patient and 2 ADA patients. One death occurred in the PBO arm. Conclusion In this non-bDMARD-IR PsA population UPA15/30 demonstrated improvement in musculoskeletal symptoms, psoriasis, physical function, pain, fatigue and inhibited radiographic progression; improvements observed by Wk2. At Wk12, UPA15/30 were non-inferior to ADA for ACR20, with superiority demonstrated for UPA30. Greater percentages of UPA vs PBO patients achieved stringent disease control measures (MDA, ACR50/70, sIGA 0/1). No new safety signals were identified compared to the safety profile observed in RA. Disclosure I. McInnes: Other; I.McI has received research grants and honoraria from Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Novartis Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, UCB. J. Anderson: Shareholder/stock ownership; J.A. may be a stock/ shareholder of AbbVie Inc. M. Magrey: Consultancies; M.M. has received consulting fees from Novartis, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Janssen. Grants/research support; M.M. has received grants/ research support from Amgen, AbbVie, and UCB Pharma. J.F. Merola: Consultancies; J.F.M. is a consultant for Merck, Abbvie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Avotres and Leo Pharma. Y. Liu: None. M. Kishimoto: Consultancies; M.K. has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Celgene, Pfizer, Gilead, Janssen, and UCB Pharma. Honoraria; M.K. has received honoraria/ speakers fees from AbbVie, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Tanabe-Mitsubishi, Ayumi, Janssen, Astellas, and UCB Pharma. S. Jeka: None. C. Pacheco-Tena: None. X. Wang: Shareholder/stock ownership; X.W. may be a shareholder of AbbVie Inc. L. Chen: Shareholder/stock ownership; L.C. may be a stock/shareholder of AbbVie Inc. P. Zueger: Shareholder/stock ownership; P.Z. may be a stock/shareholder of AbbVie Inc. A. Pangan: Shareholder/stock ownership; A.P. may be a stock/shareholder of AbbVie Inc. F. Behrens: Honoraria; F.B. has received honoraria and speakers fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, Sanofi, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Genzyme, Boehringer, Janssen, MSD, Celgene, Roche and Chugai. Grants/research support; F.B. has received grants/ research support from Pfizer, Janssen, Chugai, Celgene and Roche.

Download Full-text

Prevention of severe COVID-19 in the elderly by early high-titer plasma

10.1101/2020.11.20.20234013 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Romina Libster ◽

Gonzalo Pérez Marc ◽

Diego Wappner ◽

Silvina Coviello ◽

Alejandra Bianchi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Respiratory Disease ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

High Titer ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

The Elderly ◽

Elderly Subjects ◽

Number Needed To Treat ◽

Double Blind ◽

Access To Treatment ◽

Link Type

AbstractBackgroundTherapies to interrupt progression of early COVID-19 remain elusive. Among them, convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients was unsuccessful, perhaps because antibody should be administered earlier. We advanced plasma infusions to the first 72 hours of symptoms to arrest COVID-19 progression.MethodsA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of convalescent plasma with high IgG titers against SARS-CoV2 in elderly subjects within 72 hours of mild COVID-19 symptoms. The primary endpoint was severe respiratory disease defined as a respiratory rate ≥30 and/or an O2 sat<93% in room air. The study was interrupted at 76% of its projected sample size, because cases in the region decreased considerably and steady enrollment of study subjects became virtually impossible.Results160 patients underwent randomization. In the intention-to-treat analysis (ITT), 13/80(16.2%) patients receiving plasma vs. 25/80(31.2%) receiving placebo experienced severe respiratory disease [RR(95%CI)= 0.52(0.29,0.94); p=0.026)] with an RRR=48%.A modified ITT analysis, excluding six subjects who experienced the primary endpoint before infusion, showed a larger effect size [RR(95%CI) = 0.40(0.20, 0.81), p=0.007]. High- and low-titer donor analyses, based on a median IgG titer=1:3,200, evidenced a dose-dependent response with an RRR=73.3% for recipients of high-titer plasma (p=0.016) and a number needed to treat (NNT)=4.4. All secondary endpoints exhibited trends towards protection. No solicited adverse events were observed.ConclusionsEarly administration of high-titer convalescent plasma against SARS-CoV2 to mildly ill infected seniors reduced COVID-19 progression. This safe, inexpensive, outpatient intervention facilitates access to treatment from industrialized to LMIC, can decompress demands on hospitals, and may contribute to save lives.Funded by The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and The Fundación INFANT Pandemic Fund. Registered in the Dirección de Sangre y Medicina Transfusional del Ministerio de Salud (PAEPCC19), Plataforma PRIISA (1421), and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04479163).All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; RL, GPM, DW and FPP are investigators in a phase 3 SARS CoV2 trial from Pfizer; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Download Full-text

Sarilumab treatment of hospitalised patients with severe or critical COVID-19: a multinational, randomised, adaptive, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

10.1101/2021.02.01.21250769 ◽

2021 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Francois-Xavier Lescure ◽

Hitoshi Honda ◽

Robert A. Fowler ◽

Jennifer Sloane Lazar ◽

Genming Shi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Endpoint ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Face Mask ◽

Supplemental Oxygen ◽

Rank Test ◽

Double Blind ◽

Double Blind Placebo ◽

Link Type ◽

Hospitalised Patients ◽

Interleukin 6 Receptor

SummaryBackgroundElevated proinflammatory cytokines have been associated with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) severity. We assessed efficacy and safety of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal canula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19.MethodsThis was a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational trial in patients hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomised 2:2:1 to intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. The primary endpoint was time to ≥2-point clinical improvement (7-point scale; range: 1 [death] to 7 [not hospitalised]). The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04327388).FindingsBetween March 28 and July 3, 2020, 420 patients were randomised; 416 received treatment (placebo, n=84; sarilumab 200 mg, n=159; sarilumab 400 mg, n=173). At day 29, there were no significant differences in median (95% CI) time to ≥2-point improvement between placebo (12·0 [9·0–15·0] days) and sarilumab groups (200 mg: 10·0 [9·0–12·0] days, p=0.96, log-rank test; 400 mg: 10·0 [9·0–13·0] days, p=0.34) or in proportions of patients alive (placebo, 91·7%; sarilumab 200 mg, 89·9%, p=0·63; sarilumab 400 mg, 91·9%, p=0·85). At day 29, there were numerical, nonsignificant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +9%, 95% CI −7·7 to 25·5, p=0·25) for critical patients. There were no unexpected safety signals.InterpretationThis trial did not demonstrate efficacy of sarilumab in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19.FundingSanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Download Full-text

Vascular safety of erenumab for migraine prevention

Neurology ◽

10.1212/wnl.0000000000008743 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 94 (5) ◽

pp. e497-e510 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

David Kudrow ◽

Julio Pascual ◽

Paul K. Winner ◽

David W. Dodick ◽

Stewart J. Tepper ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Medication Use ◽

Vascular Risk Factors ◽

Migraine Prevention ◽

Acute Migraine ◽

Vascular Risk ◽

Open Label ◽

Double Blind ◽

Link Type ◽

Specific Medication

ObjectiveTo examine the cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and peripheral vascular safety of erenumab across migraine prevention studies.MethodsVascular adverse events (AEs) and blood pressure data were integrated across 4 double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of erenumab and their open-label extensions in patients with chronic or episodic migraine. Subgroup analyses were conducted by acute migraine-specific medication use and number of vascular risk factors at baseline. Standardized search terms were used to identify vascular AEs (cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or peripheral). An independent committee adjudicated whether targeted events were vascular in origin.ResultsIn placebo-controlled studies, 2,443 patients received placebo (n = 1,043), erenumab 70 mg (n = 893), or erenumab 140 mg (n = 507) subcutaneously once monthly. Regardless of acute migraine-specific medication use or vascular risk factors at baseline, AE incidence was similar across the placebo and erenumab treatment groups. Hypertension AEs were reported for 0.9% (placebo), 0.8% (erenumab 70 mg), and 0.2% (erenumab 140 mg) of patients. Vascular AEs, which were similar across double-blind and open-label treatment, generally were confounded, with plausible alternative etiologies. In 18 patients with events reviewed by the independent committee, 4 events were positively adjudicated as cardiovascular in origin: 2 deaths and 2 vascular events. All 4 positively adjudicated cardiovascular events occurred during open-label erenumab treatment.ConclusionSelective blockade of the canonical calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor with erenumab for migraine prevention had a vascular safety profile comparable to that of placebo over 12 weeks, with no increased emergence of events over time. Further study of long-term safety of erenumab in patients with migraine is needed.Clinicaltrials.gov identifiersNCT02066415, NCT02456740, NCT01952574, NCT02483585, NCT02174861, and NCT01723514.Classification of evidenceThis analysis provides Class II evidence that for patients with migraine, erenumab does not increase the risk of vascular AEs.

Download Full-text