Afatinib versus methotrexate as second-line treatment for patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) progressing on or after platinum-based therapy: LUX-Head & Neck 3 phase III trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6024-6024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ye Guo ◽  
Myung-Ju Ahn ◽  
Anthony T. C. Chan ◽  
Cheng-Hsu Wang ◽  
Jin Hyoung Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Feeding Tube ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Grade 3

6024 Background: In a previous global phase III trial (LUX-Head & Neck 1), second-line (2L) afatinib significantly improved PFS vs methotrexate (MTX) in pts with R/M HNSCC. Here, we compared efficacy/safety of 2L afatinib vs MTX in Asian pts with R/M HNSCC. Methods: Pts progressing on/after platinum therapy were randomized (2:1) to 40 mg/day afatinib (feeding tube or oral) or 40 mg/m2/week iv MTX. Primary endpoint was PFS by independent review. Secondary endpoints were OS, ORR, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: 340 pts were randomized (afatinib 228, MTX 112). Median (range) duration of treatment (Tx) was 3.0 ( < 0.1–35.9) and 1.4 ( < 0.1–8.8) mos, respectively. Afatinib significantly decreased the risk of progression or death by 37% compared with MTX (HR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.82 p = 0.0005, median PFS, 2.9 vs 2.6 mos; landmark analysis at 12 and 24 wks, 58 vs 41%, 21 vs 9%). There was no significant difference in OS (HR 0.88; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.13; median 6.9 vs 6.4 mos). ORR was 28% with afatinib and 13% with MTX (OR 2.8; 95% CI: 1.5, 5.2, p = 0.016). More pts had clinically relevant improvements in global health status/quality of life (GHS/QoL; 40 vs 23%, p < 0.01), swallowing (34 vs 18%, p = 0.01) and pain (34 vs 25%, p = 0.22) with afatinib vs MTX. Post-baseline change in GHS/QoL score was more favorable with afatinib (p < 0.001). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs; all/grade ≥3) were reported in 89/16% and 67/23% pts with afatinib and MTX. The most common grade ≥3 TRAEs were rash/acne (4%), diarrhea (4%), and stomatitis (3%) with afatinib, and anemia, leukopenia, and fatigue (all 5%) with MTX. Fatal AEs were reported in 23 and 11% pts with afatinib and MTX. Two ( hypoglycemia, pneumonitis/lung infiltration) and 4 pts had fatal AEs considered related to Tx with afatinib and MTX. 11% and 17% pts discontinued Tx due to TRAEs. Conclusions: LUX-Head & Neck 3 achieved its primary endpoint. Two randomized phase III trials have now demonstrated clinical benefit with 2L afatinib vs MTX. Safety data were consistent with the known tolerability profiles of afatinib and MTX. Clinical trial information: NCT01856478.

Capecitabine (Cape) versus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based (neo-)adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC): Safety results of a randomized, phase III trial

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4014-4014 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Hofheinz ◽  
F. Wenz ◽  
S. Post ◽  
A. Matzdorff ◽  
S. Laechelt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy ◽  
Tumour Resection ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Perioperative Treatment

4014 Background: 5-FU based CRT is regarded standard perioperative treatment in LARC. Here we report safety data of a non-inferiority phase III trial investigating (neo-)adjuvant CRT with Cape in comparison with 5-FU. Methods: Patients (pts) aged ≥18 years with LARC UICC stages II or III were recruited in this two-arm, two-strata randomized phase-III trial (arm A: Cape, arm B: 5-FU; stratum [S] I: adjuvant, S II: neoadjuvant). Regimens: Arm A: CRT: 50.4 Gy + Cape 1,650 mg/m2 days 1–38 plus five cycles of Cape 2,500 mg/m2 d 1–14, rep. d 22 (S I: 2 x Cape, CRT, 3 x Cape; S II: CRT, TME surgery followed by Cape x 5). Arm B: CRT: 50.4 Gy + 5-FU 225 mg/m2 c.i. daily [S I] or 5-FU 1,000 mg/m2 c.i. d 1–5 and 29–33 [S II] plus 4 cycles of bolus 5-FU 500mg/m2 d 1–5, rep. d 29 (S I: 2 x 5-FU, CRT, 2 x 5-FU; S II: CRT, TME surgery followed by 5-FU x 4). Primary endpoint was survival, secondary endpoints comprised safety and disease-free survival. Results: Of 401 randomized pts a total of 392 are evaluable (Arm A n=197, arm B n=195; S I n=231, S II n=161). Both arms were well balanced with respect to age, sex, WHO status, T- and N- stages. Regarding duration of treatment, 78% (Cape) and 80% (5-FU) completed all scheduled treatment cycles in S I, and 46% (Cape) and 40% (5-FU) in neoadjuvant stratum S II. In S II a total of 38% (Cape) and 43% (5-FU) did not continue chemotherapy after tumour resection. Concerning early efficacy endpoints in S II, pts treated with Cape (evaluable thus far n=121) exhibited a higher rate of T-downstaging (defined as ypT0–2; 52 vs 39%; p=0.16) and N0 (71 vs 56%; p=0.09). Regarding overall safety (NCI-CTC), pts receiving Cape experienced significantly less leukopenia (25 vs 35%; p=0.04), but more hand-foot syndrome (31 vs. 2%; p<0.001). Stomatitis/mucositis, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and radiodermatitis were not significantly different between both arms. Conclusions: Given the observed safety profile and the trend in improved downstaging in neoadjuvant stratum, Cape exhibits a potential to replace 5-FU as perioperative treatment of LARC. Efficacy results on the primary endpoint are expected for 2010. [Table: see text]

A multinational, randomized, phase III trial of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: Safety analysis of Asian XELIRI project (AXEPT).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 681-681
Author(s):  
Masato Nakamura ◽  
Tae Won Kim ◽  
Rui-hua Xu ◽  
Young Suk Park ◽  
Yong Sang Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Safety Analysis ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

681 Background: Several studies have shown that capecitabine plus irinotecan (XELIRI) has promising efficacy and safety in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. AXEPT is a non-inferiority, phase III comparison of XELIRI with or without bevacizumab vs 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid plus irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with or without bevacizumab as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: We undertook an open-label, non-inferiority, randomized phase III trial in South Korea, China and Japan. Patients were randomized 1:1 to XELIRI (irinotecan 200 mg/m2 on day 1 plus capecitabine 800 mg/m2 twice daily for 2 weeks in a 3-week cycle) with or without bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg or FOLFIRI with or without bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Results: From December 2013 to August 2015, 650 patients were enrolled and 625 (311 in FOLFIRI and 314 in XELIRI) were included to safety analysis at the cutoff dates on August 31, 2016. Patient baseline characteristics including KRAS status and UGT1A1 gene polymorphism were similar between the two treatment arms. Prior chemotherapy with oxaliplatin was given to 97.4% in both arms. The overall incidence of grade 3-4 toxicity was 73% in FOLFIRI arm and 53.2% in XELIRI arm. Whereas FOLFIRI was associated with more grade 3-4 neutropenia (43.7% vs 16.2%), leucopenia (13.5% vs 7.3%) and all grades anemia (80.4% vs 69.4%) than XELIRI, XELIRI was associated with more all grades hand-foot syndrome (34.1% vs 14.8%) and grade 3-4 diarrhea (7.0% vs 3.2%). There was no significant difference in febrile neutropenia (4.2% in FOLFIRI and 2.9% in XELIRI). The addition of bevacizumab did not alter safety profiles between XELIRI and FOLFIRI. There was a treatment-related death in FOLFIRI arm (0.3%). Conclusions: Both FOLFIRI and XELIRI were safe and well tolerated, though there were differences in the rates and toxicity profiles at which adverse events occur. Clinical trial information: NCT01996306. UMIN000012263.

scholarly journals Adjuvant Capecitabine With Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide Plus Epirubicin for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (CBCSG010): An Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (16) ◽  
pp. 1774-1784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junjie Li ◽  
Keda Yu ◽  
Da Pang ◽  
Changqin Wang ◽  
Jun Jiang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative Breast Cancer ◽  
Triple Negative ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Control Treatment ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Grade 3

PURPOSE Standard adjuvant chemotherapy for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) includes a taxane and an anthracycline. Concomitant capecitabine may be beneficial, but robust data to support this are lacking. The efficacy and safety of the addition of capecitabine into the TNBC adjuvant treatment regimen was evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, open-label, phase III trial was conducted in China. Eligible female patients with early TNBC after definitive surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to either capecitabine (3 cycles of capecitabine and docetaxel followed by 3 cycles of capecitabine, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) or control treatment (3 cycles of docetaxel followed by 3 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide). Randomization was centralized without stratification. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS Between June 2012 and December 2013, 636 patients with TNBC were screened, and 585 were randomly assigned to treatment (control, 288; capecitabine, 297). Median follow-up was 67 months. The 5-year DFS rate was higher for capecitabine than for control treatment (86.3% v 80.4%; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.99; P = .044). Five-year overall survival rates were numerically higher but not significantly improved (capecitabine, 93.3%; control, 90.7%). Overall, 39.1% of patients had capecitabine dose reductions, and 8.4% reported grade ≥ 3 hand-foot syndrome. The most common grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities were neutropenia (capecitabine, 136 [45.8%]; control, 118 [41.0%]) and febrile neutropenia (capecitabine, 50 [16.8%]; control, 46 [16.0%]). Safety data were similar to the known capecitabine safety profile and generally comparable between arms. CONCLUSION Capecitabine when added to 3 cycles of docetaxel followed by 3 cycles of a 3-drug anthracycline combination containing capecitabine instead of fluorouracil significantly improved DFS in TNBC without new safety concerns.

Efficacy and safety results from AvaALL: An open-label, randomized phase III trial of standard of care (SOC) with or without continuous bevacizumab (Bev) treatment beyond progression (PD) in patients (pts) with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) progressing after first-line Bev and chemotherapy (chemo).

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9004-9004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaafar Bennouna ◽  
Javier De Castro ◽  
Anne-Marie C. Dingemans ◽  
Frank Griesinger ◽  
Francesco Grossi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Positive Trend ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
First Line ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Safety Signals

9004 Background: The role of treatment with Bev beyond PD is unclear in the multiline treatment strategy of advanced NSCLC.AvaALL(NCT01351415), a multinational, open-label, randomized phase III trial, assessed continuous Bev and SOC beyond first PD (PD1) in pts with NSCLC following first-line treatment with platinum-based chemo plus Bev. Here we present efficacy and safety data from AvaALL. Methods: Pts with NSCLC who received 4–6 cycles of chemo + Bev and ≥2 cycles of maintenance Bev were randomized after PD1 to second-line SOC therapy (docetaxel, pemetrexed or erlotinib) ± Bev. After second PD (PD2) and third PD (PD3), pts received third-line or fourth-line SOC ± Bev treatment, respectively. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were OS rates (6, 12, and 18-months [mos]), progression-free survival (PFS) from PD1 to PD2/from PD2 to PD3, overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Data cut-off: 24 Jun 2016. Results: Overall, 485 pts were randomized (n = 475 treated). Pt characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Bev plus chemo resulted in a median OS of 11.9 mos versus 10.2 mos for SOC alone (HR 0.84, 90% CI 0.71–1.00; p = 0.1016; 387 OS events). The primary endpoint was not met (416 OS events were required, at 10% two-sided significance level). OS rates were 10% higher in the Bev arm vs SOC alone at 6-, 12- and 18-mos. Median PFS2 was 4.9 mos with Bev vs 3.8 mos with SOC (HR 0.85, 90% CI 0.72–1.00; p = 0.0907). PFS3 was significantly improved (3.5 mos for Bev, 2.4 mos for SOC; HR 0.65, 90% CI 0.51–0.84; p = 0.0047). ORR and DCR were slightly higher in the Bev arm versus the SOC arm (ORR 9.7% vs 6.7%; DCR 86.2% vs 79.3%, respectively). No new safety signals were identified. Grade ≥3 adverse events were reported in 78.2% of Bev pts and 61.6% of SOC pts. Conclusions: Although the primary endpoint was not met, efficacy data suggest a positive trend for continued Bev plus SOC after PD1 compared with SOC alone. No cumulative safety signals were identified. Clinical trial information: NCT01351415.

Gemox versus surveillance following surgery of localized biliary tract cancer: Results of the PRODIGE 12-ACCORD 18 (UNICANCER GI) phase III trial.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 225-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Edeline ◽  
Franck Bonnetain ◽  
Jean Marc Phelip ◽  
Jérôme Watelet ◽  
Pascal Hammel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Biliary Tract ◽  
Biliary Tract Cancer ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Tract Cancer ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3

225 Background: No standard post-surgery adjuvant treatment is currently recommended in localized biliary tract cancer (BTC). Gemcitabine combined with platinum is the standard chemotherapy for advanced BTC. The aim of this phase III randomized trial was to assess whether GEMOX would increase relapse-free survival (RFS) while maintaining health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Methods: We performed a multicenter randomized phase III trial. Patients were randomized, within 3 months of R0 or R1 resection of a localized BTC (intra-hepatic, perihilar, extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer), to receive either GEMOX 85 for 12 cycles (Experimental Arm A) or surveillance (Standard Arm B). Co-primary objectives were RFS and HrQoL. 190 patients and 126 RFS events were required to show an increase of median RFS from 18 to 30 months. Results: Between July 2009 and February 2014, 196 patients were included in 33 French centers. Baseline characteristics were balanced, with similar primary sites, R0 resection rates were 86.2% (Arm A) vs 87.9% (Arm B), lymph node invasion present in 37.2% vs 36.4%. In Arm A, a median of 12 cycles was delivered (mean: 9.3, range: 0-12). Maximal grade of adverse events were grade 3 in 57.5% vs 22.2%, and grade 4 in 17.0% vs 9.1%. During treatment one patient died in each arm. The main grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the year following inclusion were peripheral neuropathy (50.0% vs 1.1%), and neutropenia (22.3% vs 0%). Median follow-up was 44.3 months, with 54 and 64 RFS events in arms A vs B. There was no significant difference in RFS between the arms (log-rank p = 0.31), with a hazard ratio of 0.83 [95% CI: 0.58-1.19], p = 0.31 (futility boundaries were crossed). Median RFS was 30.4 [95% CI: 15.4-45.8] vs 22.0 months [95%CI: 13.6-38.3] in arms A & B respectively, and 4-years RFS was 39.3% [95%CI: 28.4%-50.0%] vs 33.2% [95%CI: 23.1-43.7%]. Global Health HrQoL scores were not different at 12 months (70.8 vs 83.3, p = 0.18) and at 24 months (75.0 vs 83.3, p = 0.50). Conclusions: Adjuvant chemotherapy in BTC with GEMOX was feasible and associated with expected toxicities and no deterioration of HrQoL. There was no significant difference in RFS between GEMOX and surveillance. Clinical trial information: NCT01313377.

Hypofractionated, dose escalation radiotherapy for high-risk prostate cancer: The primary endpoint of a group led phase III trial. (PCS5).

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 123-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamim Niazi ◽  
Abdenour Nabid ◽  
Redouane Bettahar ◽  
Linda S. Vincent ◽  
Andre-Guy Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Lymph Nodes ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Dose Escalation ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Pelvic Lymph Nodes ◽  
Androgen Suppression ◽  
Grade 3

123 Background: The low α\β ratio of prostate cancer (PCa), 1.5-2, suggests high radiation-fraction sensitivity and predicts a therapeutic advantage of hypofractionated radiation treatment (HFRT). Most available data of moderate HFRT have focused on low, intermediate and/or mixed risk groups. We therefore conducted the first randomized trial of moderately HFRT in high-risk PCa patients and present the primary safety analysis of side effects at 2 years. Methods: We conducted a Canadian multi-centric phase III trial of conventional fractionated radiation therapy (CFRT) vs. intensity-modulated HFRT in men with high-risk PCa as per NCCN definition. From February 2012 to March 2015, 329 patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either CFRT or HFRT. All patients received neo-adjuvant, concurrent and adjuvant androgen suppression, with a median duration of 24 months. CFRT consisted of 76 Gy in 2 Gy per fraction to the prostate where 46 Gy was delivered to the pelvic lymph nodes. HFRT consisted of concomitant dose escalation of 68 Gy in 2.72 Gy per fraction to the prostate and 45 Gy, in 1.8Gy per fraction to the pelvic lymph nodes. The primary endpoint was to compare the toxicities at 6 months and at 24 months using the CTCAE v.4. Results: Of the329 patients, 164 were randomized to HFRT and 165 to CFRT. The minimum, median and maximum follow-up were 24, 40 and 60 months respectively. At 24 months, 12 patients in the CFRT arm and 15 patients in the HFRT arm had grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal (GI)-related adverse events (HR:1.32 [0.62.2.83] 95% CI; P=NS). Similarly, 11 patients in the CFRT arm and 3 patients in HFRT arm had grade 2 or higher genitourinary (GU) toxicities (HR:0.26 [0.07-0.94] 95% CI; P=0.037). In the HFRT arm, there were 3 grade 3 GI and one grade 3 GU related toxicities. In the CFRT arm there were 3 grade 3 GU and no grade 3 GI related toxicities. There were no grade 4 toxicities in either arm. Conclusions: This is the first hypofractionated dose escalated radiotherapy study in high-risk PCa patients treated with contemporary radiation and androgen suppression. Our results indicate that moderate HFRT to high risk PCa patients is equally well tolerated as CFRT at 2 years. Clinical trial information: NCT01444820.

scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Cancer Patients: A Single Centre Experience

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 3573
Author(s):  
Alfred Chung Pui So ◽  
Harriet McGrath ◽  
Jonathan Ting ◽  
Krishnie Srikandarajah ◽  
Styliani Germanou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Vaccine Safety ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Solid Malignancy ◽  
Common Grade ◽  
Phase Iii Trials ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Oncology Centre

Emergency approval of vaccines against COVID-19 provides an opportunity for us to return to pre-pandemic oncology care. However, safety data in cancer patients is lacking due to their exclusion from most phase III trials. We included all patients aged less than 65 years who received a COVID-19 vaccine from 8 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 at our London tertiary oncology centre. Solicited and unsolicited vaccine-related adverse events (VRAEs) were collected using telephone or face-to-face consultation. Within the study period, 373 patients received their first dose of vaccine: Pfizer/BioNTech (75.1%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (23.6%), Moderna (0.3%), and unknown (1.1%). Median follow-up was 25 days (5–85). Median age was 56 years (19–65). Of the patients, 94.9% had a solid malignancy and 76.7% were stage 3–4. The most common cancers were breast (34.0%), lung (13.4%), colorectal (10.2%), and gynaecological (10.2%). Of the patients, 88.5% were receiving anti-cancer treatment (36.2% parenteral chemotherapy and 15.3% immunotherapy), 76.1% developed any grade VRAE of which 2.1% were grade 3. No grade 4/5 or anaphylaxis were observed. The most common VRAEs within 7 days post-vaccination were sore arm (61.7%), fatigue (18.2%), and headaches (12.1%). Most common grade 3 VRAE was fatigue (1.1%). Our results demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccines in oncology patients have mild reactogenicity.

P136 Efficacy and safety of olokizumab in a phase III trial in patients with moderately to severely active RA inadequately controlled by TNF-α inhibitor therapy

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eugen Feist ◽  
Saeed Fatenejad ◽  
Sergey Grishin ◽  
Elena Korneva ◽  
Michael Luggen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Inhibitor Therapy ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Phase Iii Trial ◽  
Tnf Α ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background/Aims  Olokizumab (OKZ) is a new humanised monoclonal antibody targeting IL-6. Here we present the results of the phase III study of OKZ in anti-TNF-IR patients. Methods  Patients with moderately to severely active RA who had previously failed TNF inhibitors (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02760433/CREDO3) were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous (SC) injections of OKZ 64 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w) or placebo (PBO), plus MTX. At week 16, all subjects in the PBO group were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either of OKZ regimes. The primary endpoint was ACR20 response at week 12. Results  368 subjects were randomised according to the protocol and 320 patients (87%) completed the 24-week treatment period. Baseline characteristics were comparable across arms. Both regimens of OKZ were significantly better in primary endpoint: ACR20 were 60.9% (p = 0.0029 in comparison vs. PBO) in OKZ q2w, 59.6% in OKZ q2w (p = 0.0040 in comparison vs. PBO) and 40.6% in PBO. The key efficacy outcomes were maintained throughout the 24-week period of the study. Overall incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were 65.5% in OKZ q2w, 65.0% in OKZ q4w and 50.7% in PBO. Subsequent randomization of PBO arm at week 16 did not change TEAEs incidence rate per treatment group significantly: 64.3% in any OKZ q2w and 59.7% in any OKZ q4w. The majority of TEAEs in all groups were not serious and were of mild or moderate severity. Incidence of treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAE) were: 12 (7.0%) subjects in any OKZ q2w; 6 subjects (3.2%) in any OKZ q4w group, all in the first 16 weeks. The most frequently reported TESAEs across all treatment groups were infections and infestations: 2 (1.2%) in OKZ q2w group, 2 (1.1%) in OKZ q4w group. No opportunistic infections including active tuberculosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations or deaths were reported. Conclusion  In this global Phase III trial in patients with moderately to severely active RA inadequately controlled by TNF-α inhibitor therapy, treatment with OKZ plus MTX in both regimes (OKZ 64 mg q2w and OKZ 64 mg q4w) was associated with significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of RA compared to PBO plus MTX over a 24-week period. Treatment with OKZ q2w and q4w in this difficult to treat population was well tolerated and consistent with the established safety profile of anti-IL-6 agents. Disclosure  E. Feist: Consultancies; R-Pharm, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi. Honoraria; R-Pharm, Abbvie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Member of speakers’ bureau; R-Pharm, Abbvie, AB2Bio, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai, Sanofi, Sobi, UCB. Grants/research support; Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Chugai. S. Fatenejad: Consultancies; RPharm International. Shareholder/stock ownership; Pfizer. S. Grishin: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. E. Korneva: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm. M. Luggen: Consultancies; Amgen, Sun Pharmaceuticals, R-Pharm International. Grants/research support; I havAbbvie, R-Pharm, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, and GSK. E. Nasonov: Honoraria; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. Member of speakers’ bureau; Lilly, Abbnie, Prizer, Biocad, R-Pharm. M. Samsonov: Corporate appointments; Employed by R-Pharm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document