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

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 720-727 ◽  
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.

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

Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous and Intravenous Loading Dose Regimens of Secukinumab in Patients with Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from a Randomized Phase II Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Witold Tlustochowicz ◽  
Proton Rahman ◽  
Bruno Seriolo ◽  
Gerhard Krammer ◽  
Brian Porter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Active Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Joint Disease ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Link Type

Objective.To evaluate the efficacy and safety of secukinumab, a fully human antiinterleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, administered with an intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) loading regimen versus placebo, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.In this phase II, double-blind, double-dummy, 52-week study (ClinicalTrials.govNCT01359943), 221 patients with inadequate response to methotrexate were randomized (2:2:1) to secukinumab, IV loading 10 mg/kg at baseline, Weeks 2 and 4, then SC 150 mg every 4 weeks (n = 88); secukinumab SC loading 150 mg once weekly for 5 weeks, then every 4 weeks (n = 89); or a matching placebo (followed by secukinumab 150 mg every 4 weeks starting Week 16; n = 44). The primary endpoint was superior efficacy of pooled secukinumab versus placebo using American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at Week 12.Results.The primary efficacy endpoint was not met: ACR20 response at Week 12 was 49.2% for pooled secukinumab versus 40.9% for placebo (p = 0.3559). These variables improved significantly with pooled secukinumab versus placebo at Week 12 (all p < 0.05): the 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28), patient’s and physician’s global assessment of disease activity, patient’s assessment of RA pain, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels. Results of continuous efficacy outcomes were similar between the IV and SC loading regimens. The most frequent adverse events were infections, with similar rates across secukinumab and placebo.Conclusion.Although the primary endpoint (ACR20) was not met, secukinumab demonstrated improved efficacy in reducing disease activity over placebo as measured by DAS28 and other secondary endpoints.

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.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Kay ◽  
Janusz Jaworski ◽  
Rafal Wojciechowski ◽  
Piotr Wiland ◽  
Anna Dudek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Acr20 Response ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Equivalent Efficacy ◽  
Acr20 Response Rate

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.

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.

Similarity of response to biologics between elderly-onset rheumatoid arthritis (EORA) and non-EORA elderly patients: from the FIRST registry

2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.201135
Author(s):  
Sae Ochi ◽  
Fumitaka Mizoguchi ◽  
Kazuhisa Nakano ◽  
Yoshiya Tanaka
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Trajectory Analysis ◽  
Response Patterns ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Elderly Onset ◽  
Disease Modifying ◽  
Elderly Onset Rheumatoid Arthritis

Objective Increasing numbers of patients are developing rheumatoid arthritis (RA) at an older age, and optimal treatment of elderly-onset RA (EORA) patients is attracting greater attention. This study aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) in EORA and non-EORA elderly patients. Methods A cohort of RA patients treated with b/tsDMARDs were retrospectively analyzed. Among patients who were ≥60 years old, those who developed RA after age 60 years were categorized as EORA, while others were categorized as non-EORA elderly. Disease activity were compared between the EORA and non-EORA elderly groups. Results In total, 1,040 patients were categorized as EORA and 710 as non-EORA elderly. There were not significant differences in characteristics at baseline between the two groups. The proportion of patients with low and high disease activity was comparable at week 2, 22 and 54 between in the EORA and the non-EORA elderly group. There was not significant difference in reasons of the discontinuation of b/tsDMARDs between the two groups. Elderly onset did not affect changes in CDAI and HAQ-DI as well as reasons of the discontinuation between the two groups. The trajectory analysis on CDAI-responses to b/tsDMARDs for 54 weeks identified three response patterns. The proportions of patients categorized into each group and CDAI-response trajectories to b/tsDMARDs were very similar between EORA and non-EORA elderly patients. Conclusion CDAI response patterns to b/tsDMARDs and hazard ratio of adverse events were similar between EORA and non-EORA elderly patients.

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

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (5) ◽  
pp. 579-589 ◽  
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]

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 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 Efficacy and safety of bimekizumab as add-on therapy for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with inadequate response to certolizumab pegol: a proof-of-concept study

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (8) ◽  
pp. 1033-1040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Glatt ◽  
Peter C Taylor ◽  
Iain B McInnes ◽  
Georg Schett ◽  
Robert Landewé ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Certolizumab Pegol ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Proof Of Concept ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Dual Inhibition

ObjectiveEvaluate the efficacy and safety of dual neutralisation of interleukin (IL)-17A and IL-17F with bimekizumab, a monoclonal IgG1 antibody, in addition to certolizumab pegol (CZP) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response (IR) to certolizumab pegol.MethodsDuring this phase 2a, double-blind, proof-of-concept (PoC) study (NCT02430909), patients with moderate-to-severe RA received open-label CZP 400 mg at Weeks 0, 2 and 4, and 200 mg at Week 6. Patients with IR at Week 8 (Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28(CRP))>3.2) were randomised 2:1 to CZP (200 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W)) plus bimekizumab (240 mg loading dose then 120 mg Q2W) or CZP plus placebo. The primary efficacy and safety variables were change in DAS28(CRP) between Weeks 8 and 20 and incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).ResultsOf 159 patients enrolled, 79 had IR at Week 8 and were randomised to CZP plus bimekizumab (n=52) or CZP plus placebo (n=27). At Week 20, there was a greater reduction in DAS28(CRP) in the CZP-IR plus bimekizumab group compared with the CZP-IR plus placebo group (99.4% posterior probability). The most frequent TEAEs were infections and infestations (CZP plus bimekizumab, 50.0% (26/52); CZP plus placebo, 22.2% (6/27)).ConclusionsPoC was confirmed based on the rapid decrease in disease activity achieved with 12 weeks of CZP plus bimekizumab. No unexpected or new safety signals were identified when neutralising IL-17A and IL-17F in patients with RA concomitantly treated with CZP, but the rate of TEAEs was higher with dual inhibition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document