Efficacy and safety of biosimilar CT-P17 versus reference adalimumab in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis: 24-week results from a randomized study

Abstract Background To demonstrate equivalent efficacy of the proposed high-concentration (100 mg/ml), citrate-free adalimumab biosimilar CT-P17 to European Union-approved adalimumab (EU-adalimumab) in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods This randomized, double-blind phase III study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03789292) randomized (1:1) subjects with active RA at 52 centers to receive CT-P17 or EU-adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks until week 52. Results to week 24 are reported here. The primary endpoint was 20% improvement by American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) response rate at week 24. Equivalence was concluded if the corresponding confidence intervals (CIs) for the estimate of treatment difference were within predefined equivalence margins: − 15 to 15% (95% CI; European Medicines Agency assumption); − 12 to 15% (90% CI; Food and Drug Administration assumption). Additional efficacy, pharmacokinetic, usability, safety, and immunogenicity endpoints were evaluated. Results 648 subjects were randomized (324 CT-P17; 324 EU-adalimumab). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 was 82.7% (n = 268/324) in both groups (intention-to-treat population). The 95% CI (− 5.94 to 5.94) and 90% CI (− 4.98 to 4.98) were within predefined equivalence margins for both assumptions and equivalent efficacy was concluded. Additional endpoints and overall safety were comparable between groups. Mean trough serum concentrations of CT-P17 were slightly higher than those of EU-adalimumab. Immunogenicity was slightly lower numerically for the CT-P17 group than for the EU-adalimumab group. Conclusions CT-P17 and EU-adalimumab have equivalent efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity in subjects with active RA. Overall safety of CT-P17 is consistent with the known safety profile of reference adalimumab. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03789292. Registered 28 December 2018—retrospectively registered.

Download Full-text

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

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-eular.658 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of CE-224,535, an Antagonist of P2X7Receptor, in Treatment of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Inadequately Controlled by Methotrexate

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.110874 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 39 (4) ◽

pp. 720-727 ◽

Cited By ~ 132

Author(s):

THOMAS C. STOCK ◽

BRADLEY J. BLOOM ◽

NATHAN WEI ◽

SALIHA ISHAQ ◽

WON PARK ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Disease Activity ◽

Response Rate ◽

Tolerability Profile ◽

Inadequate Response ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

Acr20 Response ◽

Link Type ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Acr20 Response Rate

Objective.To evaluate efficacy and safety of CE-224,535, a selective P2X7receptor antagonist, versus placebo, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX).Methods.In our phase IIA study (ClinicalTrials.govno.NCT00628095; A6341009), patients aged ≥ 18 years with active RA were randomized to receive either CE-224,535 (500 mg bid) or placebo for 12 weeks; all patients continued a stable background dose of ≥ 7.5 mg MTX.Results.The American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate (primary efficacy endpoint) was not significantly different from placebo for CE-224,535 (34.0% vs 36.2%; p = 0.591) at Week 12, or at any timepoint over the 12-week treatment period. There was no significant difference at Week 12 for the ACR20 response rate following subgroup analyses by age, sex, baseline disease activity, baseline duration of disease, geographic region, or concomitant use of steroids. ACR50/ACR70 response rates and change from baseline in Disease Activity Score 28-joint C-reactive protein (DAS28-3-CRP) and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index for CE-224,535 were not significant at Week 12 versus placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AE) were reported by 62.3% (CE-224,535) and 55.3% (placebo) of patients; the most common AE were nausea (11.3%, CE-224,535; 4.3%, placebo) and diarrhea (7.5%, CE-224,535; 4.3%, placebo). The proportion of patients discontinuing due to an AE was 9.4% (CE-224,535) and 6.4% (placebo); no deaths were reported. Serious AE occurred in 3.8% (CE-224,535) and 2.1% (placebo) of patients; none was considered treatment-related.Conclusion.CE-224,535 was not efficacious, compared with placebo, for the treatment of RA in patients with an inadequate response to MTX. CE-224,535 demonstrated an acceptable safety and tolerability profile.

Download Full-text

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

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-219876 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

Efficacy and Safety of Belimumab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Phase II, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Dose-ranging Study

The Journal of Rheumatology ◽

10.3899/jrheum.120886 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 40 (5) ◽

pp. 579-589 ◽

Cited By ~ 58

Author(s):

William Stohl ◽

Joan T. Merrill ◽

James D. McKay ◽

Jeffrey R. Lisse ◽

Z. John Zhong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Disease Activity ◽

Phase Ii ◽

B Lymphocyte ◽

Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor ◽

Open Label ◽

Double Blind ◽

Acr20 Response ◽

Link Type ◽

American College Of Rheumatology

Objective.To evaluate the efficacy/safety of belimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.Patients fulfilling American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for RA for ≥ 1 year who had at least moderate disease activity while receiving stable disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy and failed ≥ 1 DMARD were randomly assigned to placebo or belimumab 1, 4, or 10 mg/kg, administered intravenously on Days 1, 14, and 28, and then every 4 weeks for 24 weeks (n = 283). This was followed by an optional 24-week extension (n = 237) in which all patients received belimumab. Primary efficacy endpoint was the Week 24 ACR20 response.Results.Week 24 ACR20 responses with placebo and belimumab 1, 4, and 10 mg/kg were 15.9%, 34.7% (p = 0.010), 25.4% (p = 0.168), and 28.2% (p = 0.080), respectively. Patients taking any belimumab dose who continued with belimumab in the open-label extension had an ACR20 response of 41% at 48 weeks. A similar ACR20 response (42%) at 48 weeks was seen in patients taking placebo who switched in the extension to belimumab 10 mg/kg. Greater response rates were observed in patients who at baseline were rheumatoid factor-positive, anticitrullinated protein antibody-positive, or tumor necrosis factor inhibitor-naive, or had elevated C-reactive protein levels, Disease Activity Score 28 > 5.1, or low B lymphocyte stimulator levels (< 0.858 ng/ml). Adverse event rates were similar across treatment groups.Conclusion.In this phase II trial, belimumab demonstrated efficacy and was generally well tolerated in patients with RA who had failed previous therapies. [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00071812]

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 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)

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215163 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 78 (10) ◽

pp. 1320-1332 ◽

Cited By ~ 32

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.

Download Full-text

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

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212172 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 77 (4) ◽

pp. 488-494 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

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.

Download Full-text

A randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing SB2, an infliximab biosimilar, to the infliximab reference product Remicade in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2015-207764 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 76 (1) ◽

pp. 58-64 ◽

Cited By ~ 93

Author(s):

Jung-Yoon Choe ◽

Nenad Prodanovic ◽

Jaroslaw Niebrzydowski ◽

Ivan Staykov ◽

Eva Dokoupilova ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Reference Product ◽

Methotrexate Therapy ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Severe Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽

Double Blind ◽

Acr20 Response ◽

American College Of Rheumatology ◽

Registration Number ◽

Adjusted Rate

ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SB2 to the infliximab reference product (INF) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy.MethodsThis is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, multinational, multicentre parallel group study. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate therapy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SB2 or INF of 3 mg/kg. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 30. Inclusion of the 95% CI of the ACR20 response difference within a ±15% margin was required for equivalence.Results584 subjects were randomised into SB2 (N=291; 290 analysed) or INF (N=293). The ACR20 response at week 30 in the per-protocol set was 64.1% in SB2 versus 66.0% in INF. The adjusted rate difference was −1.88% (95% CI −10.26% to 6.51%), which was within the predefined equivalence margin. Other efficacy outcomes such as ACR50/70, disease activity score measured by 28 joints and European League against Rheumatism response were similar between SB2 and INF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (57.6% in SB2 vs 58.0% in INF) as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADA) to infliximab up to week 30 (55.1% in SB2 vs 49.7% in INF). The PK profile was similar between SB2 and INF. Efficacy, safety and PK by ADA subgroup were comparable between SB2 and INF.ConclusionsSB2 was equivalent to INF in terms of ACR20 response at week 30. SB2 was well tolerated with a comparable safety profile, immunogenicity and PK to INF.Trial registration numberNCT01936181.

Download Full-text

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

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215164 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 78 (10) ◽

pp. 1305-1319 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

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.

Download Full-text

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 ◽

10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000757 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 4 (2) ◽

pp. e000757 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

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.

Download Full-text