Efficacy and safety of sarilumab in combination with methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate effect of methotrexate monotherapy (results of phase III MOBILITY study)

2019 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. L. Nasonov ◽  
M. L. Stanislav ◽  
T. A. Raskina ◽  
G. V. Kuropatkin ◽  
I. V. Shirinsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Joint Destruction ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Radiographic Outcomes ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Average Change ◽  
Modified Total Sharp Score ◽  
Mobility Study

Objective: to study the efficacy and safety of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment with monoclonal antibodies to interleukin 6 receptors (IL6R) – sarilumab (SAR) in combination with methotrexate (MT).Subjects and methods. The study included adult patients with moderate or severe RA and inadequate effect of MT monotherapy. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to subgroups receiving SAR (at doses of 150 or 200 mg) or placebo (PL) every 2 weeks in combination with a weekly intake of MT for 52 weeks. The primary endpoints of the study included the achievement of ACR20 after 24 weeks, the change of HAQ-DI after 16 weeks and assessment of radiological progression of joint destruction (modified total Sharp score mTSS) after 52 weeks.Results and discussion. In general, the initial characteristics of patients were similar in all groups. A statistically significant improvement of all three primary endpoints was found in the groups of patients treated with SAR 150 and 200 mg compared to the group of PL. ACR20 response after 24 weeks was achieved in 53.6% (p<0.0005), 65.9 and 19.6% of patients respectively (p<0.0001), the average change in HAQ-DI after 16 weeks was 20.53; 20.55 and 20.29 respectively (p<0.0001); the average change in mTSS after 52 weeks was 0.49; 0.11 and 2.30, respectively (p<0.0001).Conclusion. Both doses of SAR (150 and 200 mg every 2 weeks) in combination with MT demonstrated sustained clinical efficacy in patients with RA, which was confirmed by a significant improvement in symptomatic, functional and radiographic outcomes. SAR therapy was generally well tolerated. The adverse events observed in this study were consistent with the effects of the IL6 blockade.

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.

scholarly journals Etanercept therapy in rheumatoid arthritis: Efficacy and safety

2013 ◽  
Vol 141 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 495-502
Author(s):  
Tatjana Ilic ◽  
Biljana Milic ◽  
Dejan Celic ◽  
Biljana Vuckovic ◽  
Igor Mitic
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Joint Destruction ◽  
Life Quality ◽  
Activity Level ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Etanercept Therapy ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
High Level

Introduction. Etanercept, tumor necrosis factor (TNF?) antagonist, lowers the disease activity level in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), reduces joint destruction saving physical functions and improving life quality. Objective. The aim of this study was to establish efficacy and safety of etanercept in combination with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in the treatment of RA. Methods. To patients with active RA, who were on therapy with DMARD, etanercept was introduced in weekly doses of 50 mg, with continuation of DMARD. Efficacy of this form of treatment was evaluated in the 12th week. Maintenance of the effect of treatment was also evaluated during 24, 48 and 96 weeks. Long term evaluation of etanercept safety was assessed by registering all unwanted events during a two year period. Results. After 12 weeks of treatment with etanercept, 80% of patients had ACR20 response, while 85% showed clinically significant decrease of DAS28 index. We achieved remission in five patients (12.5%) and low activity of RA in 17 patients (42.5%). During a 96week of followup period, achieved therapy effects were maintained. In four patients (10%) etanercept therapy was interrupted after 24 weeks because of inadequate response. In one of them (2.5%) we recorded a cardiovascular incident. Acute infections were registered in 47 cases. Four of those were severe infections. Neither cases of malignancy development were noted, nor were there any lethal disease outcomes. Conclusion. Etanercept in combination with DMARD shows a high level of efficacy in the treatment of RA. The safety profile of the drug is satisfactory.

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

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

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

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 Efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (MONARCH): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group phase III trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 76 (5) ◽  
pp. 840-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerd R Burmester ◽  
Yong Lin ◽  
Rahul Patel ◽  
Janet van Adelsberg ◽  
Erin K Mangan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Activity Index ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
End Point

ObjectivesTo compare efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy with adalimumab monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who should not continue treatment with methotrexate (MTX) due to intolerance or inadequate response.MethodsMONARCH was a randomised, active-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy, phase III superiority trial. Patients received sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w)) or adalimumab (40 mg q2w) monotherapy for 24 weeks. The primary end point was change from baseline in 28-joint disease activity score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) at week 24.ResultsSarilumab was superior to adalimumab in the primary end point of change from baseline in DAS28-ESR (−3.28 vs −2.20; p<0.0001). Sarilumab-treated patients achieved significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response rates (sarilumab: 71.7%/45.7%/23.4%; adalimumab: 58.4%/29.7%/11.9%; all p≤0.0074) and had significantly greater improvement in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (p=0.0037). Importantly, at week 24, more patients receiving sarilumab compared with adalimumab achieved Clinical Disease Activity Index remission (7.1% vs 2.7%; nominal p=0.0468) and low disease activity (41.8% vs 24.9%; nominal p=0.0005, supplemental analysis). Adverse events occurred in 63.6% (adalimumab) and 64.1% (sarilumab) of patients, the most common being neutropenia and injection site reactions (sarilumab) and headache and worsening RA (adalimumab). Incidences of infections (sarilumab: 28.8%; adalimumab: 27.7%) and serious infections (1.1%, both groups) were similar, despite neutropenia differences.ConclusionsSarilumab monotherapy demonstrated superiority to adalimumab monotherapy by improving the signs and symptoms and physical functions in patients with RA who were unable to continue MTX treatment. The safety profiles of both therapies were consistent with anticipated class effects.Trial registration numberNCT02332590.

scholarly journals Low rates of radiographic progression of structural joint damage over 2 years of baricitinib treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

RMD Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000898 ◽  
Author(s):  
Desirée van der Heijde ◽  
Michael Schiff ◽  
Yoshiya Tanaka ◽  
Li Xie ◽  
Gabriella Meszaros ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Radiographic Progression ◽  
Joint Damage ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Smallest Detectable Change ◽  
Structural Joint ◽  
Synthetic Dmards ◽  
Modified Total Sharp Score

ObjectivesTo evaluate radiographic progression of structural joint damage over 2 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from baricitinib clinical trials who were disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)–naïve or had an inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD-IR).MethodsPatients had completed one of three phase III studies and entered a long-term extension (LTE) study, continuing on the same baricitinib dose as at originating study completion. At 52 weeks, DMARD-naïve patients receiving methotrexate (MTX) or combination therapy (baricitinib 4 mg+MTX) were switched to baricitinib 4 mg monotherapy (±MTX per investigator opinion); MTX-IR patients receiving adalimumab were switched to baricitinib 4 mg on background MTX. At 24 weeks, csDMARD-IR patients receiving placebo were switched to baricitinib 4 mg on background csDMARD. Radiographs at baseline, year 1 and year 2 were scored using the van der Heijde modified Total Sharp Score. Linear extrapolation was used for missing data.ResultsOf 2573 randomised patients, 2125 (82.6%) entered the LTE, of whom 1893 (89.1%) entered this analysis. At year 2, progression was significantly lower with initial baricitinib (monotherapy or combination therapy) versus initial MTX in DMARD-naïve patients (proportion with non-progression defined by ≤smallest detectable change (SDC): 87.3% baricitinib 4 mg+MTX; 70.6% MTX; p≤ 0.001). In MTX-IR patients, progression with initial baricitinib was significantly lower than with initial placebo and similar to initial adalimumab (≤SDC: 82.7% baricitinib 4 mg; 83.5% adalimumab; 70.6% placebo; p≤0.001). In csDMARD-IR patients, significant benefit was seen with baricitinib 4 mg (≤SDC: 87.2% vs 73.2% placebo; p≤0.01).ConclusionsTreatment with once-daily baricitinib resulted in low rates of radiographic progression for up to 2 years.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document