Tocilizumab Inhibits Structural Joint Damage and Improves Physical Function in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis and Inadequate Responses to Methotrexate: LITHE Study 2-year Results

2013 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROY M. FLEISCHMANN ◽  
ANNE-MARIE HALLAND ◽  
MAREK BRZOSKO ◽  
RUBEN BURGOS-VARGAS ◽  
CHRISTOPHER MELA ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Safety Data ◽  
Joint Damage ◽  
Area Under The Curve ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Structural Joint

Objective.To assess radiographic progression, physical function, clinical disease activity, and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) and who were treated with tocilizumab-MTX or MTX during Year 2 of a 2-year study.Methods.During Year 1, patients were randomized to placebo-MTX, 4 mg/kg tocilizumab-MTX, or 8 mg/kg tocilizumab-MTX. During Year 2, patients continued the initial double-blind treatment or switched to open-label 8 mg/kg tocilizumab-MTX. Co-primary endpoints at Week 104 were mean change from baseline in Genant-modified Total Sharp Score (GmTSS) and adjusted mean area under the curve (AUC) for change from baseline in the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Signs and symptoms of RA and safety were also evaluated.Results.At Week 104, mean change from baseline in GmTSS was significantly lower for patients initially randomized to tocilizumab-MTX 4 mg/kg (0.58; p = 0.0025) or 8 mg/kg (0.37; p < 0.0001) than for patients initially randomized to placebo-MTX (1.96). Adjusted mean AUC of change from baseline in HAQ-DI was also significantly lower in patients initially randomized to tocilizumab-MTX 4 mg/kg (–287.5; p < 0.0001) or 8 mg/kg (–320.8; p < 0.0001) than in patients initially randomized to placebo-MTX (–139.4). Signs and symptoms of RA were maintained or showed improvement. No new safety signals were noted.Conclusion.Compared with placebo-MTX, tocilizumab-MTX significantly inhibited structural joint damage and improved physical function in patients with RA who previously had inadequate response to MTX. An extension of this study is continuing and will provide additional longterm efficacy and safety data. National Clinical Trials registry NCT00106535.

scholarly journals Filgotinib versus placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate: a phase III randomised clinical trial

2021 ◽  
pp. annrheumdis-2020-219214
Author(s):  
Bernard Combe ◽  
Alan Kivitz ◽  
Yoshiya Tanaka ◽  
Désirée van der Heijde ◽  
J Abraham Simon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Randomised Clinical Trial ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Double Blind

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Janus kinase-1-preferential inhibitor filgotinib versus placebo or tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite ongoing treatment with methotrexate (MTX).MethodsThis 52-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled phase III trial evaluated once-daily oral filgotinib in patients with RA randomised 3:3:2:3 to filgotinib 200 mg (FIL200) or filgotinib 100 mg (FIL100), subcutaneous adalimumab 40 mg biweekly, or placebo (through week 24), all with stable weekly background MTX. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Additional efficacy outcomes were assessed sequentially. Safety was assessed from adverse events and laboratory abnormalities.ResultsThe proportion of patients (n=1755 randomised and treated) achieving ACR20 at week 12 was significantly higher for FIL200 (76.6%) and FIL100 (69.8%) versus placebo (49.9%; treatment difference (95% CI), 26.7% (20.6% to 32.8%) and 19.9% (13.6% to 26.2%), respectively; both p<0.001). Filgotinib was superior to placebo in key secondary endpoints assessing RA signs and symptoms, physical function and structural damage. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab in terms of Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C reactive protein ≤3.2 at week 12 (p<0.001); FIL100 did not achieve non-inferiority. Adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were comparable among active treatment arms.ConclusionsFilgotinib improved RA signs and symptoms, improved physical function, inhibited radiographic progression and was well tolerated in patients with RA with inadequate response to MTX. FIL200 was non-inferior to adalimumab.Trial registration numberNCT02889796.

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

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 629-639 ◽  
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).

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.

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.

scholarly journals Long-term safety, efficacy and inhibition of radiographic progression with abatacept treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: 3-year results from the AIM trial

2011 ◽  
Vol 70 (10) ◽  
pp. 1826-1830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joel M Kremer ◽  
Anthony S Russell ◽  
Paul Emery ◽  
Carlos Abud-Mendoza ◽  
Jacek Szechinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Radiographic Progression ◽  
Incidence Rates ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
American College Of Rheumatology ◽  
Inadequate Responders

ObjectiveTo evaluate abatacept treatment over 3 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) refractory to methotrexate (MTX).MethodsPatients randomised to abatacept or placebo (+MTX) during the 1-year double-blind period of the Abatacept in Inadequate responders to Methotrexate (AIM) trial received open-label abatacept (+MTX) in the long-term extension (LTE). Safety was assessed for patients who received ≥1 dose of abatacept, regardless of randomisation group. Efficacy was assessed for patients randomised to abatacept who entered the LTE.Results433 and 219 patients were randomised and treated with abatacept or placebo, respectively; 378 and 161 entered the LTE. At year 3, 440/539 patients were ongoing. No unexpected safety events were observed in the LTE. By year 3, incidence rates of adverse event and serious adverse events were 249.8/100 and 15.1/100 patient-years, respectively. Incidence rates were generally stable over time. At year 3, 84.8%, 63.4% and 37.5% of patients achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria of 20, 50 and 70, respectively, compared with 82.3%, 54.3% and 32.4% of patients at year 1. Mean changes in Genant-modified Sharp scores were reduced progressively over 3 years, with significantly greater inhibition during year 3 compared with year 2 (p=0.022 for total score).ConclusionIn MTX-inadequate responders with RA, abatacept provided consistent safety and sustained efficacy over 3 years. The data suggest an increasing inhibitory disease-modifying effect on radiographic progression.

scholarly journals Longterm Safety and Efficacy of Subcutaneous Abatacept in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: 5-year Results from a Phase IIIb Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 45 (8) ◽  
pp. 1085-1092 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark C. Genovese ◽  
César Pacheco-Tena ◽  
Arturo Covarrubias ◽  
Gustavo Leon ◽  
Eduardo Mysler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Multinational Trial ◽  
Serious Infection ◽  
Longterm Treatment ◽  
Phase Iiib ◽  
Inadequate Responders

Objective.To assess 5-year safety, tolerability, and efficacy of subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (ABA) in methotrexate (MTX)-refractory patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.The Abatacept Comparison of sub[QU]cutaneous versus intravenous in Inadequate Responders to methotrexatE (ACQUIRE) phase IIIb, randomized, double-dummy, multinational trial compared efficacy and safety of SC and intravenous (IV) ABA in patients with RA. In the initial 6-month double-blind (DB) period, patients received IV or SC ABA, plus MTX, and in the subsequent open-label longterm extension (LTE) period, all patients received SC ABA (125 mg/wk). The final 5-year safety, tolerability, and efficacy analyses are reported.Results.Of 1385 patients who completed the DB period, 1372 entered LTE and 945 (68.8%) completed ≥ 5 years of treatment. During LTE, 97 (7.1%) patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event (AE). Incidence rate (IR; event/100 patient-yrs of exposure; based on LTE data, 95% CI) for AE of interest were the following: serious AE 7.73 (6.96–8.58), infection 38.60 (36.24–41.12), serious infection 1.68 (1.35–2.07), malignancies 1.09 (0.84–1.42), and autoimmune disorders 1.33 (1.05–1.69), and were stable over time. No association between immunogenicity and either worsening of ABA safety or loss of efficacy was noted. Efficacy in the LTE was consistent with the DB period and was maintained to the end of the study.Conclusion.These 5-year data establish that SC ABA (125 mg/wk) has a consistent safety profile and durable efficacy for longterm treatment of patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX.

SAT0151 EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF UPADACITINIB VERSUS ABATACEPT IN PATIENTS WITH ACTIVE RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS AND PRIOR INADEQUATE RESPONSE OR INTOLERANCE TO BIOLOGIC DISEASE-MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS (SELECT-CHOICE): A DOUBLE-BLIND, RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED PHASE 3 TRIAL

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1015-1016
Author(s):  
A. Rubbert-Roth ◽  
J. Enejosa ◽  
A. Pangan ◽  
R. Xavier ◽  
B. Haraoui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Study Drug ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Biologic Dmards

Background:Upadacitinib (UPA) is an oral, reversible, selective JAK 1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The efficacy/safety of UPA has been demonstrated in phase 3 studies, including superiority to adalimumab in patients (pts) with prior inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate.1-4Objectives:To assess the efficacy/safety of UPA vs abatacept (ABA) in pts with prior IR or intolerance to biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs).Methods:Pts were randomized to once daily UPA 15 mg or intravenous ABA (at Day 1, Weeks [Wks] 2, 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 [< 60 kg: 500 mg; 60-100 kg: 750 mg; >100 kg: 1,000 mg]), with all pts continuing background stable csDMARDs. The study was double-blind for 24 wks. Starting at Wk 12, pts who did not achieve ≥20% improvement from baseline (BL) in both tender and swollen joint counts at two consecutive visits, had background medication(s) adjusted or initiated. The primary endpoint was change from BL in DAS28(CRP) at Wk 12 (non-inferiority). The non-inferiority of UPA vs ABA was tested using the 95% CI of treatment difference against a non-inferiority margin of 0.6. The two key secondary endpoints at Wk 12 were change from BL in DAS28(CRP) and the proportion of pts achieving clinical remission (CR) based on DAS28(CRP), defined as DAS28(CRP) <2.6. Both endpoints were to demonstrate the superiority of UPA vs. ABA. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are reported up to Wk 24 for all pts who received at least one dose of study drug.Results:Of 612 pts treated; 67% of pts had received 1 prior bDMARD, 22% received 2 prior bDMARDs, and 10% received ≥ 3 prior bDMARDs. 549 (90%) completed 24 wks of treatment. Common reasons for study drug discontinuation were AEs (UPA, 3.6%; ABA, 2.6%) and withdrawal of consent (UPA, 1.7%; ABA, 2.6%).Non-inferiority and superiority were met for UPA vs ABA at Wk 12 for change from BL in DAS28(CRP) (-2.52 vs -2.00; -0.52 [-0.69, -0.35]; p <0.001 for UPA vs ABA). UPA also demonstrated superiority to ABA in achieving DAS28(CRP) <2.6 (30.0% vs 13.3%; p <0.001 for UPA vs ABA; Figure 1). Improvements in disease activity and remission rates were maintained through Wk 24. The proportions of pts achieving low disease activity (defined as DAS28(CRP) ≤3.2), ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses were greater with UPA compared with ABA at Wk 12 (nominal p <0.05). More stringent outcome measures – CR, ACR50, and ACR70 responses - remained higher with UPA than ABA through Wk 24 (nominal p <0.05). Incidence of serious TEAEs, AEs leading to discontinuation, hepatic disorders, and CPK elevations were numerically higher with UPA versus ABA (Figure 2). Eight cases of herpes zoster were reported (4 in each treatment arm). No malignancies were reported. One case of adjudicated MACE, two adjudicated cases of VTE (1 pt with DVT and 1 pt with PE; both pts had at least one risk factor for VTE), and one treatment-emergent death were reported with UPA.Conclusion:In RA pts with a prior IR or intolerance to bDMARDs, UPA demonstrated superior improvement in signs and symptoms vs ABA based on change in DAS28(CRP) and in achieving CR at Wk 12. The safety profile of UPA was consistent with the phase 3 RA studies with no new risks identified.References:[1]Burmester GR, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2503-12[2]Fleischmann R, et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(11):1788-800[3]Genovese MC, et al. Lancet. 2018;391(10139):2513-24[4]Smolen JS, et al. Lancet. 2019;393(10188):2303-11Disclosure of Interests:Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Chugai, Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Jeffrey Enejosa Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Aileen Pangan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ricardo Xavier Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Roche, Boulos Haraoui Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, Pfizer, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Amgen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz, UCB, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, and UCB, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Amgen, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB, Maureen Rischmueller Consultant of: Abbvie, Bristol-Meyer-Squibb, Celgene, Glaxo Smith Kline, Hospira, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, Nasser Khan Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Ying Zhang Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Naomi Martin Shareholder of: AbbVie Inc., Employee of: AbbVie Inc., Mark C. Genovese Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Galapagos, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, Pfizer Inc., RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Merck Serono, Genentech/Roche, Gilead Sciences, Inc., GSK, Novartis, RPharm, Sanofi Genzyme

Safety and efficacy of fostamatinib in rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate in phase II OSKIRA-ASIA-1 and OSKIRA-ASIA-1X study

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshiya Tanaka ◽  
David Millson ◽  
Shigeru Iwata ◽  
Shingo Nakayamada
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Phase Ii Studies ◽  
Group A

Abstract Objective The primary objectives of two phase II studies of fostamatinib were to evaluate efficacy (OSKIRA-Asia-1: NCT01569074) and long-term safety/tolerability (OSKIRA-Asia-1X: NCT01640054) in patients from Asia with active RA despite MTX treatment. Methods OSKIRA-Asia-1 was a 12-week, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Patients were randomized to receive one of four fostamatinib doses (groups A–D; n = 31, 33, 33, 33) or placebo (group E; n = 33). OSKIRA-Asia-1X was a long-term extension study (100 mg fostamatinib qd) of patients who completed OSKIRA-Asia-1. RA signs and symptoms were measured by ACR response criteria and DAS based on a 28-joint count. Physical function status was assessed with the HAQ–Disability Index. Safety findings were monitored. Results In OSKIRA-Asia-1, fostamatinib revealed numerical improvements in ACR 20% response (ACR20) at week 12 in group A (100 mg bid) and group B (100 mg bid, then 150 mg qd) vs placebo. Statistically significant improvements in ACR20 and ACR50 at week 8 and in ACR70 at week 12, and statistically significant achievement in low disease activity (defined as DAS based on a 28-joint count ≤3.2 based on C-reactive protein) occurred in groups A and B. Improvement in physical function was numerically higher in group A. The most common adverse events were hypertension, diarrhoea and neutropenia. In OSKIRA-Asia-1X, the most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, hypertension, RA and neutropenia. Conclusion Fostamatinib achieved both statistically and clinically significant improvements in RA signs and symptoms. The safety and tolerability of fostamatinib (plus MTX) were consistent with previous studies. Trial registration OSKIRA-Asia-1 trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01569074; OSKIRA-Asia-1X trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01640054.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document