Effect of antibody switch in non-responders to a CGRP receptor antibody treatment in migraine: A multi-center retrospective cohort study

Background Switching between antibody classes might be a treatment option in migraine patients who have not responded to one class of a CGRP-(receptor) monoclonal antibody (mAb), but there are no efficacy data so far. In this real-world analysis, we assessed the treatment response to a CGRP-mAb in patients that have previously failed the CGRP-receptor-mAb erenumab. Methods We analyzed retrospective headache diary data of 78 patients with migraine who switched between CGRP-mAbs classes at four German headache centers either due to lack of efficacy or intolerable side effects. Among these, we identified 25 patients who did not respond to erenumab after three treatment cycles (defined as <30% reduction of monthly headache days) and had complete headache documentation at least one month before and during both treatments. We assessed the ≥30% responder rate at month three after switching from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb (galcanezumab or fremanezumab) (primary endpoint). Secondary endpoints included ≥50% responder rate, monthly headache days, and monthly days with acute medication use. In an exploratory subgroup analysis patients were stratified for daily and non-daily headache. Results The switch from erenumab to a CGRP-mAb led to a ≥30% response in one-third (32%) of the patients after three treatment cycles. A ≥50% response was achieved in 12% of the patients. Monthly headache days were reduced in month three compared to baseline (20.8 ± 7.1 to 17.8 ± 9.1; p = 0.009). Stratified analysis revealed that no patient with daily headache (n = 9) responded to the treatment switch, while a 30% response was achieved by 50% of patients with non-daily headache (n = 16). Conclusion Our findings demonstrate that a relevant proportion of erenumab non-responders might benefit from a treatment switch to a CGRP-mAb. Switching seems to be a promising treatment option especially in migraine patients with non-daily headache.

The Potential Impact of Digital Biomarkers in Multiple Sclerosis in the Netherlands: An Early Health Technology Assessment of MS Sherpa

(1) Background: Monitoring of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) with eHealth interventions or digital biomarkers provides added value to the current care path. Evidence in the literature is currently scarce. MS sherpa is an eHealth intervention with digital biomarkers, aimed at monitoring symptom progression and disease activity. To show the added value of digital biomarker–based eHealth interventions to the MS care path, an early Health Technology Assessment (eHTA) was performed, with MS sherpa as an example, to assess the potential impact on treatment switches. (2) Methods: The eHTA was performed according to the Dutch guidelines for health economic evaluations. A decision analytic MS model was used to estimate the costs and benefits of MS standard care with and without use of MS sherpa, expressed in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) from both societal and health care perspectives. The efficacy of MS sherpa on early detection of active disease and the initiation of a treatment switch were modeled for a range of assumed efficacy (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%). (3) Results: From a societal perspective, for the efficacy of 15% or 20%, MS sherpa became dominant, which means cost-saving compared to the standard of care. MS sherpa is cost-effective in the 5% and 10% scenarios (ICERs EUR 14,535 and EUR 4069, respectively). From the health care perspective, all scenarios were cost-effective. Sensitivity analysis showed that increasing the efficacy of MS sherpa in detecting active disease early leading to treatment switches be the most impactful factor in the MS model. (4) Conclusions: The results indicate the potential of eHealth interventions to be cost-effective or even cost-saving in the MS care path. As such, digital biomarker–based eHealth interventions, like MS sherpa, are promising cost-effective solutions in optimizing MS disease management for people with MS, by detecting active disease early and helping neurologists in decisions on treatment switch.

P091 Switching to TNFi versus non-TNFi biologics in Crohn’s Disease patients: Real-world outcomes from a German claims data analysis

Background Determining the best treatment path for Crohn’s Disease (CD) patients following loss of response (LoR) to a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) is challenging for clinicians. This study seeks to provide real-world evidence on treatment failure, treatment discontinuation and corticosteroid-free drug survival in CD patients with LoR to a first TNFi, switching to another TNFi compared to a non-TNFi biologic. Methods Adult CD-patients without biologics therapy in the last 6 months who started treatment with adalimumab or infliximab and switched due to LoR to another biologic between 01/10/2014–31/12/2018 were identified from German claims data (AOK PLUS). The identified patients were classified as either within-class switchers (WCS) (if they switched to adalimumab or infliximab) or outside-class switchers (OCS) (if they switched to vedolizumab or ustekinumab). The date of first treatment switch was set as the index date. Patients were followed for at least one year after treatment switch. To compare WCS and OCS, baseline covariate adjustment through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) of the propensity scores was conducted. Time-to-event analyses were performed using Cox Proportional Hazard regressions adjusted for an indicator of primary non-response and secondary LoR (if the first switch happened within or after 6 months from the initial TNFi). Results 112 patients (53 WCS and 59 OCS) were identified. Upon IPTW, 43 WCS and 54 OCS satisfying the common support assumption were included for comparative analyses with adjustment for primary non-response and secondary LoR. WCS were significantly more likely to receive corticosteroid therapy, more likely to fail and to discontinue the treatment they had switched to; and more likely to switch again to another biologic compared to OCS (Figure 1). Having switched due to primary non-response or due to secondary LoR was not significantly associated with any outcome. Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for an indicator variable of primary non-response/secondary loss of response Abbreviations: CD, Crohn’s disease; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio Conclusion Whilst small sample size is a limitation, these results suggest that following loss of response to a TNFi, patients may benefit from switching to vedolizumab or ustekinumab rather than switching to a different TNFi.

Randomised study of PF-06410293, an adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar, compared with reference ADL for the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis: results from weeks 26–52, including a treatment switch from reference ADL to PF-06410293

ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of biosimilar adalimumab (ADL) PF-06410293 (ADL-PF; adalimumab-afzb) versus EU-sourced reference ADL (ADL-EU) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on longer-term treatment and after being switched from ADL-EU to ADL-PF.MethodsIn this multinational, double-blind study, patients with active RA were initially randomised to ADL-PF or ADL-EU for 26 weeks (treatment period (TP) 1). At the start of TP2 (weeks 26–52), patients in the ADL-EU arm were blindly re-randomised 1:1 to remain on ADL-EU (ADL-EU/ADL-EU; n=135) or switched to ADL-PF (ADL-EU/ADL-PF; n=134); patients receiving ADL-PF continued blinded treatment (ADL-PF/ADL-PF; n=283).ResultsThe American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement (ACR20) response rates were comparable between treatment groups at all visits during TP2. At week 52, ACR20 response rates were 82.7% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 79.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 84.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF). Other measures of deep response (ACR50/70, ACR/EULAR-defined remission, EULAR good response, and Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints Based on High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein <2.6) and Health Assessment Questionnaire−Disability Index were maintained over TP2 and comparable between groups. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 43.5% (ADL-PF/ADL-PF), 44.4% (ADL-EU/ADL-EU) and 38.3% (ADL-EU/ADL-PF) of patients; there were no clinically meaningful differences in the safety profiles between groups. The percentage of patients who were antidrug antibody positive was comparable overall among ADL-PF/ADL-PF (47.3%), ADL-EU/ADL-EU (54.1%) and ADL-EU/ADL-PF (45.9%).ConclusionsThe similar efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics of ADL-PF and ADL-EU, maintained up to week 52, were unaffected by blinded treatment switch from ADL-EU to ADL-PF at week 26.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480153; EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29.

Long-term efficacy and safety of nucleos(t)ides analogues in patients with chronic hepatitis B

Nucleos(t)ide analogues with high barrier to resistance are regarded as the principal therapeutic option for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Treatment with entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil (TDF) and the later released tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is highly effective at controlling hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection and, in the vast majority of patients, is well tolerated. No significant differences in viral suppression have been described among the different regimens, although an earlier achievement in biochemical response has been suggested first under TDF and recently under TAF. High barrier to resistance NAs rarely achieve hepatitis B surface antigen sero-clearance, and therefore should be maintained life-long in most cases. This has increased concerns about treatment-related toxicity, especially in patients under TDF with additional risk factors for kidney and bone impairment. TAF has shown a better bone and kidney safety profile than TDF, although it is not yet available worldwide due to its higher cost. Emergence of adverse events should be monitored since treatment-switch to ETV/TAF seems to be effective and safe in HBV mono-infected subjects. Finally, although an effective antiviral treatment leads to a clear improvement in clinical outcome of CHB patients; the risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not completely avoided with viral suppression. Whether tenofovir-based regimens provide any additional benefit over ETV in HCC prevention remains unclear and requires further investigation.

Osimertinib rechallenge under steroid protection following osimertinib-induced pneumonitis: three case studies

Osimertinib is a third-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor that became the preferred first-line treatment option for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer with sensitizing epidermal growth factor receptor mutations. Drug-induced pneumonitis is known to occur with osimertinib. In case of severe pneumonitis, discontinuation of treatment and therapy with corticosteroids is recommended, and a treatment switch is usually performed. We herein report the treatment course in three patients who were rechallenged with osimertinib under steroid protection following an osimertinib-induced pneumonitis. All our patients were initially re-exposed to a lower dose of osimertinib. Two patients were successfully rechallenged under prednisolone protection. The third patient, who was initially retreated with osimertinib without steroid protection, suffered from a recurrent pneumonitis, and was later rechallenged successfully under steroid protection. Our case series indicates that rechallenge with osimertinib following recovery from osimertinib-induced pneumonitis allows a successful rechallenge in individual cases when alternative treatment options are lacking. Concomitant steroids appear to protect against flares of pneumonitis during rechallenge.

Use of rilpivirine in HIV-1-infected individuals in routine clinical practice from 2012 to 2017 in France

Objectives We assessed virological outcomes of rilpivirine use in France from 2012 to 2017, in three groups of people living with HIV (PLHIV): (i) antiretroviral (ARV)-naive PLHIV; (ii) ARV-experienced PLHIV switching to rilpivirine while failing therapy; and (iii) ARV-experienced PLHIV switching to rilpivirine while virologically controlled. Methods Virological success (VS) was defined as a plasma HIV-1 viral load (VL) &lt;50 copies/mL and virological failure (VF) as two consecutive VL &gt;50 copies/mL or one VL &gt;50 copies/mL followed by a treatment switch prior to the next VL measurement. The cumulative incidence of VS was assessed considering rilpivirine discontinuation, loss to follow-up and death as competing risks, while estimates of cumulative incidence of VF accounted for loss to follow-up and death. Results Among the 2166 ARV-naive PLHIV initiating rilpivirine, the 4 year cumulative incidence of VS was 91.0% and was associated with baseline VL. Among the 2125 ARV-experienced PLHIV switching to rilpivirine while failing therapy, the 4 year cumulative incidence of VS was 82.5% and was associated with lower VL, higher CD4 and less than three prior ARVs. Among the 11 828 ARV-experienced PLHIV switching to rilpivirine while virologically controlled, the 4 year cumulative incidence of VF was 9.6%. The risk of VF was lower among MSM, for PLHIV with CD4 ≥ 500 cell/mm3, without a prior AIDS event, or with a longer VL suppression at baseline. Conclusions Rilpivirine-containing regimens yielded high rates of viral suppression in most participants, while it was ineffective when used outside the marketing authorization in naive participants.