Search

Objectives The GO-BACK study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of golimumab (GLM) treatment withdrawal in adults with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who demonstrate inactive disease during a 10-month open-label (OL) GLM run-in. Methods Eligible participants received OL GLM in period 1. In period 2, participants who achieved inactive disease were randomized 1:1:1 to receive double-blind (DB) treatment with monthly placebo (PBO, treatment withdrawal) or continued GLM treatment given monthly (GLM QMT) or every 2 months (GLM Q2MT). Participants who did not have a disease flare continued DB treatment for ∼12 months. Participants with a disease flare discontinued DB treatment and resumed monthly OL GLM. Primary endpoint compared the proportion of participants without a disease flare in the continued GLM treatment groups (QMT or Q2MT) vs PBO in a multiplicity-controlled, step-down fashion. Safety follow-up continued for ∼3 months after last treatment. Results A total of 188 patients, out of the 323 enrolled, were eligible for participation in period 2. Both GLM QMT and GLM Q2MT were superior to treatment withdrawal (PBO) in preventing disease flare (P Conclusion Among participants with active nr-axSpA who attained inactive disease after 10 months of GLM treatment, continued GLM treatment is well tolerated and provides superior protection against disease flares compared with GLM withdrawal. (EudraCT: 2015-004020-65, registered on 30 March 2022; NCT: 03253796, registered on 18 August 2017.)

The cytokine interleukin-6 is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Olokizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 cytokine directly, is being tested for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.In a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, placebo- and active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:2:2:1 ratio) patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate to receive subcutaneous olokizumab at a dose of 64 mg every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks), or placebo; all patients continued methotrexate therapy. The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% fewer tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in three of five other domains) at week 12, with each olokizumab dose tested for superiority to placebo. We also tested the noninferiority of each olokizumab dose to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response (noninferiority margin, -12 percentage points in the lower boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between groups).A total of 464 patients were assigned to receive olokizumab every 2 weeks, 479 to receive olokizumab every 4 weeks, 462 to receive adalimumab, and 243 to receive placebo. An ACR20 response at week 12 occurred in 44.4% of the patients receiving placebo, in 70.3% receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 25.9 percentage points; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 17.1 to 34.1), in 71.4% receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 27.0 percentage points; 97.5% CI, 18.3 to 35.2), and in 66.9% receiving adalimumab (difference vs. placebo, 22.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 14.8 to 29.8) (P0.001 for the superiority of each olokizumab dose to placebo). Both olokizumab doses were noninferior to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response at week 12 (difference, 3.4 percentage points [97.5% CI, -3.5 to 10.2] with olokizumab every 2 weeks and 4.5 percentage points [97.5% CI, -2.2 to 11.2] with olokizumab every 4 weeks). Adverse events, most commonly infections, occurred in approximately 70% of the patients who received olokizumab. Antibodies against olokizumab were detected in 3.8% of the patients receiving the drug every 2 weeks and in 5.1% of those receiving it every 4 weeks.In patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving maintenance methotrexate, olokizumab was superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab in producing an ACR20 response at 12 weeks. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Supported by R-Pharm; CREDO2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02760407.).

Objective To evaluate fenebrutinib, an oral and highly selective noncovalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK), in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Patients with RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) (cohort 1; n = 480) were randomized to receive fenebrutinib (50 mg once daily, 150 mg once daily, or 200 mg twice daily), adalimumab (40 mg every other week), or placebo. Patients with RA and an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (cohort 2; n = 98) received fenebrutinib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo. Both cohorts continued MTX therapy. Results In cohort 1, the percentages of patients in whom American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (ACR50) was achieved at week 12 were similar in the fenebrutinib 50 mg once daily and placebo groups, and were higher in the fenebrutinib 150 mg once daily group (28%) and 200 mg twice daily group (35%) than in the placebo group (15%) (P = 0.016 and P = 0.0003, respectively). Fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily and adalimumab (36%) were comparable (P = 0.81). In cohort 2, ACR50 was achieved in more patients receiving fenebrutinib 200 mg twice daily (25%) than placebo (12%) (P = 0.072). The most common adverse events in the fenebrutinib groups included nausea, headache, anemia, and upper respiratory tract infections. Fenebrutinib had significant effects on myeloid and B cell biomarkers (CCL4 and rheumatoid factor). Fenebrutinib and adalimumab caused overlapping as well as distinct changes in B cell and myeloid biomarkers. Conclusion Fenebrutinib demonstrates efficacy comparable to adalimumab in patients with an inadequate response to MTX, and safety consistent with existing immunomodulatory therapies for RA. These data support targeting both B and myeloid cells via this novel mechanism for potential efficacy in the treatment of RA.

Objective Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-6 from binding to membrane-bound and soluble IL-6 receptor-α. We assessed the long-term safety of sarilumab in patients from eight clinical trials and their open-label extensions. Methods Data were pooled from patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received at least one dose of sarilumab in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs; combination group) or as monotherapy (monotherapy group). Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and AEs and laboratory values of special interest were assessed. Results 2887 patients received sarilumab in combination with csDMARDs and 471 patients received sarilumab monotherapy, with mean exposure of 2.8 years and 1.7 years, maximum exposure 7.3 and 3.5 years, and cumulative AE observation period of 8188 and 812 patient-years, respectively. Incidence rates per 100 patient-years in the combination and monotherapy groups, respectively, were 9.4 and 6.7 for serious AEs, 3.7 and 1.0 for serious infections, 0.6 and 0.5 for herpes zoster (no cases were disseminated), 0.1 and 0 for gastrointestinal perforations, 0.5 and 0.2 for major adverse cardiovascular events, and 0.7 and 0.6 for malignancy. Absolute neutrophil counts Conclusion The long-term safety profile of sarilumab, either in combination with csDMARDs or as monotherapy, remained stable and consistent with the anticipated profile of a molecule that inhibits IL6 signalling.

Summary Background Ixekizumab, a high-affinity interleukin-17A (IL-17A) monoclonal antibody, has previously shown efficacy in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (also known as ankylosing spondylitis). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab, an IL-17 inhibitor, in non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. Here, we report the primary results of COAST-X. Methods COAST-X was a 52-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study done at 107 sites in 15 countries in Europe, Asia, North America, and South America. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with active axial spondyloarthritis without definite radiographic sacroiliitis (non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis), objective signs of inflammation (via MRI or C-reactive protein), and an inadequate response or intolerance to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous 80 mg ixekizumab every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 2 weeks (Q2W), or placebo. Changing background medications or switching to open-label ixekizumab Q2W, or both, was allowed after week 16 at investigator discretion. Primary endpoints were Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society-40 (ASAS40) response (defined as an improvement of 40% or more and an absolute improvement from baseline of 2 units or more [range 0–10] in at least three of the four domains [patient global, spinal pain, function, and inflammation] without any worsening in the remaining one domain) at weeks 16 and 52. Patients who switched to open-label ixekizumab were imputed as non-responders in logistic regression analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02757352 . Findings Between Aug 2, 2016, and Jan 29, 2018, 303 patients were enrolled (105 to placebo, 96 to ixekizumab Q4W, and 102 to ixekizumab Q2W). Both primary endpoints were met: ASAS40 at week 16 (ixekizumab Q4W: 34 [35%] of 96, p=0·0094 vs placebo; ixekizumab Q2W: 41 [40%] of 102, p=0·0016; placebo: 20 [19%] of 105) and ASAS40 at week 52 (ixekizumab Q4W: 29 [30%] of 96, p=0·0045; ixekizumab Q2W: 32 [31%] of 102, p=0·0037; placebo: 14 [13%] of 105). 60 (57%) of 104 patients in the placebo group, 63 (66%) of 96 in the ixekizumab Q4W group, and 79 (77%) of 102 in the ixekizumab Q2W group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the ixekizumab groups were nasopharyngitis and injection site reaction. Of the treatment-emergent adverse events of special interest, there was one case of serious infection in the ixekizumab Q4W group. The frequency of serious adverse events was low (four [1%] of 302) and similar across the three groups. There were no malignancies or deaths. No new safety signals were identified. Interpretation Ixekizumab was superior to placebo for improving signs and symptoms in patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis at weeks 16 and 52. Reports of adverse events were similar to those of previous ixekizumab studies. Ixekizumab offers a potential therapeutic option for patients with non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis who had an inadequate response or were intolerant to NSAID therapy. Funding Eli Lilly and Company.

Sarilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks the interleukin-6 receptor alpha (IL-6Rα). The phase 3 SARIL-RA-EASY study (EASY) assessed the robustness of an autoinjector (pen) for administering sarilumab when used by adults with active moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who are candidates for anti-IL-6R therapy in an unsupervised real-world setting. EASY was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group usability study of the sarilumab pen and prefilled syringe. Patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to sarilumab 150 or 200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) administered via pen or syringe, plus background disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Patients reported their ability to remove the pen cap and initiate and complete injections; negative responses were defined as product technical complaints (PTCs). The primary endpoint was the number of validated product technical failures (PTFs; PTC with a validated technical cause). This study was not powered to demonstrate bioequivalence or differences in efficacy among groups. A total of 217 patients were randomized. There were 600 successful injections with the sarilumab pen in 108 patients and no pen-associated PTFs. One PTC was observed (the pen was mistakenly activated before injection). At week 12, 88% of patients indicated the pen was “easy” to use, and 98% reported they were “satisfied” with the pen. Proportions of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response and a 28-joint disease activity score by C-reactive protein

Background CT-P10 is a biosimilar of innovator rituximab (RTX), a biological therapy used to treat patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who have responded inadequately to anti-tumor necrosis factor agents. Objective Our objective was to compare the clinical profile of CT-P10 versus RTX in patients with RA who received up to two courses of treatment and were followed for up to 72 weeks. Methods In this multicenter double-blind phase I study, patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CT-P10 1000 mg or RTX 1000 mg at weeks 0 and 2. Based on disease activity, patients could receive a second course of treatment between weeks 24 and 48. Efficacy endpoints, including mean change from baseline in Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28), safety, immunogenicity, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated. Results In total, 154 patients were randomized to CT-P10 or RTX (n = 103 and 51, respectively); 137 (n = 92 and 45) completed the first course of treatment, of whom 83 (n = 60 and 23) were re-treated. Improvements from baseline in all efficacy endpoints were highly similar between the CT-P10 and RTX groups over both treatment courses. At week 24 after the second course, mean change from week 0 of the first course in DAS28 erythrocyte sedimentation rate was −2.47 and −2.04 for CT-P10 and RTX, respectively, (p = 0.1866) and in DAS28 C-reactive protein was −2.32 and −2.00, respectively (p = 0.3268). The proportion of patients positive for antidrug antibodies at week 24 after the second treatment course was 20.0% and 21.7% in the CT-P10 and RTX groups, respectively. The safety profile of CT-P10 was comparable to that of RTX, and pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties were similar. Conclusions In patients with RA, efficacy, safety, and other clinical data were comparable between CT-P10 and RTX after up to two courses of treatment over 72 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01534884). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40259-017-0232-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveIn MOBILITY (NCT01061736), sarilumab significantly reduced disease activity, improved physical function and inhibited radiographic progression at week 52 versus placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate. We report 5-year safety, efficacy and radiographic outcomes of sarilumab from NCT01061736 and the open-label extension (EXTEND; NCT01146652), in which patients received sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) + methotrexate.MethodsPatients (n=1197) with moderately to severely active RA were initially randomised to placebo, sarilumab 150 mg or sarilumab 200 mg subcutaneously q2w plus weekly methotrexate for 52 weeks. Completers were eligible to enrol in the open-label extension and receive sarilumab 200 mg q2w + methotrexate.ResultsOverall, 901 patients entered the open-label extension. The safety profile remained stable over 5-year follow-up and consistent with interleukin-6 receptor blockade. Absolute neutrophil count 3 was observed but not associated with increased infection rate. Initial treatment with sarilumab 200 mg + methotrexate was associated with reduced radiographic progression over 5 years versus sarilumab 150 mg + methotrexate or placebo + methotrexate (mean±SE change from baseline in van der Heijde-modified Total Sharp Score: 1.46±0.27, 2.35±0.28 and 3.68±0.27, respectively (pConclusionClinical efficacy, including inhibition of radiographic progression, reduction in disease activity and improvement in physical function, was sustained with sarilumab + methotrexate over 5 years. Safety appeared stable over the 5-year period.

Background Sarilumab blocks IL-6 from binding to membrane and soluble IL-6 receptor-a. Sarilumab is approved for adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is being investigated in a Phase 2 trial (NCT02776735) in 2–17-year-old patients (pts) with pcJIA, comprising rheumatoid-factor (RF)-positive and RF-negative polyarticular and extended oligoarticular JIA. Objectives Evaluation of pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), safety, and efficacy of 3 subcutaneous (SC) sarilumab doses in pcJIA. Methods A 12-week dose-finding study was performed to identify an appropriate sarilumab dose for use in the pcJIA population. Pts were divided by body weight into 2 groups: A (30–60 kg) and B (10– Results 42 pts enrolled (20/22 in Groups A/B); mean age was 13.0/5.2 years. At baseline, mean pcJIA duration, number of active joints, and JADAS27-CRP were 4.6/1.7 years, 17.2/11.0, and 22.2/19.1, in Groups A/B, respectively. As in adult pts, sarilumab exhibited nonlinear PK with target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD). Following repeated SC administrations, exposure increased in a greater than dose-proportional manner and accumulated 1.9–4.5-fold over 12 weeks. Sarilumab exposure was similar in both weight groups for each dose (Figure), and comparable to corresponding adult doses. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported in 36/42 (85.7%) pts (comparable across dose and weight groups); infections (28/42, 66.7%) were the most frequently reported AE. 12 grade 3/4 neutropenias were identified, mostly in Dose 3 (n=6) and in Group B (n=8). None was associated with infection; all resolved in a few days. Overall, 4 pts discontinued due to neutropenia and 1 due to alanine aminotransferase increase. There were no serious AEs, no cases of GI perforation, and no deaths. By Week 12, as observed while on-treatment: all pts attained JIA ACR30; 50%, 62%, and 100% of pts attained JIA ACR70 with Doses 1, 2, and 3, respectively; JADAS27-CRP mean % changes from baseline in Doses 1, 2, and 3 were -74.6%, -73.1%, and -87.9%, respectively. Conclusion Sarilumab exhibited nonlinear PK with TMDD. Doses tested in pcJIA yielded similar exposure in both weight groups and were comparable to equivalent doses in adults with RA. All dose regimens proved effective for decreasing disease activity. Safety profile was consistent with class effects; higher incidences of neutropenia were observed with Dose 3, and in pts weighing 10– Acknowledgement Study funding and medical writing support (Joseph Hodgson, Adelphi) provided by Sanofi and Regeneron Disclosure of Interests Fabrizio De Benedetti Grant/research support from: Abbvie, SOBI, Novimmune, Roche, Novartis, Sanofi, Pfizer, Inmaculada Calvo Penades Grant/research support from: AbbVie, BMS, Clementia, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Sanofi, Consultant for: AbbVie, and Novartis, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Novartis, Roche, and SOBI, Nadina E. Rubio Perez Speakers bureau: Abbvie, and Roche, Alexey Maschan: None declared, Pierre Quartier Consultant for: AbbVie, Chugai-Roche, lilly, Novartis, Novimmune, Sanofi, and SOBI, Consultant for: AbbVie, Chugai-Roche, Lilly, Novartis, Novimmune, Sanofi, and SOBI, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai-Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Chugai-Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI, Zbigniew Żuber: None declared, Marina Stanislav Consultant for: R-Pharm, Raul Barria Consultant for: Tecnofarma, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, and Roche, Daniel Clemente Garulo Speakers bureau: Novartis, and Roche, Gabriel Vega Cornejo Grant/research support from: I currently have no conflicts of interest, I am only setting protocols for the pharmaceutical industry with Parexel, Sanofi and Bristol-Myers Squibb., Nancy Liu Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, Christine Xu Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, Angeliki Giannelou Shareholder of: Regeneron, Employee of: Regeneron, Bolanle Akinlade Shareholder of: Regeneron, Employee of: Regeneron, Lydie Baret-Cormel Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi

Background: The EXTEND open-label extension study (NCT01146652) is collecting data on long-term treatment of RA with sarilumab as monotherapy and in combination with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs, predominantly methotrexate. Objectives: Post hoc analysis to compare outcomes between patients (pts) who received sarilumab monotherapy, received sarilumab +csDMARDs, or who discontinued csDMARDs during sarilumab treatment. Methods: Pts enrolled in four trials of sarilumab SC 150 or 200 mg q2w +csDMARDs (MOBILITY, NCT01061736; TARGET, NCT01709578; ASCERTAIN, NCT01768572; and NCT01217814) and an open-label sarilumab monotherapy study (ONE, NCT02121210) were eligible to receive open-label sarilumab SC 200 mg q2w in EXTEND, +csDMARDs if given in the parent trial. In EXTEND, csDMARDs could be stopped at investigator discretion (reasons for csDMARD withdrawal were not recorded). Post hoc analyses were conducted on three pt groups: Group 1 permanently discontinued csDMARDs at any time during Wks 0–96 of EXTEND and subsequently received sarilumab monotherapy; Group 2 continued csDMARDs; and Group 3 enrolled from the monotherapy study and never received csDMARDs. A subgroup of Group 1, comprising pts who received csDMARDs during Wks 0–12 and discontinued csDMARDs during Wks >12–96, was used for sensitivity analysis. Results: There were 42 pts in Group 1, 1851 in Group 2, and 111 in Group 3 with minor differences between groups in demographics and disease characteristics at entry into EXTEND. The proportion of pts remaining on study at 96 wks was 69%, 80% and 83% in Groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Similar substantial and durable response rates (CDAI ≤2.8, CDAI ≤10, DAS28-CRP Conclusion: Over the 120-wk study period, pts initially on sarilumab +csDMARDs who subsequently discontinued csDMARDs maintained similar clinical responses as pts who continued sarilumab +csDMARDs or received sarilumab monotherapy throughout. The AE profile was as expected, with no new safety signals. Acknowledgement: Study funding and medical writing support (Matt Lewis, Adelphi) provided by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Disclosure of Interests: Jeffrey R. Curtis Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, UCB, Consultant for: Abbvie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Janssen, Lilly, Myriad, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, UCB, Yong Lin Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, Karthinathan Thangavelu Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, Marina Stanislav Consultant for: R-Pharm, Gregory St. John Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Antonio Gomez-Centeno Grant/research support from: Boehringer Ingelheim, Celltrion, Galapagos-Gilead, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB, YL Biologics, Consultant for: Abbvie, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Gebro, Hospira, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Rubio, Sandoz, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Menarini, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Rubio, UCB, Sanofi, Carlo Selmi Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant for: AbbVie, Alfa-Sigma, Biogen, Bristol-Myrs Squibb, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Alfa-Sigma, Biogen, Bristol-Myrs Squibb, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, UCB, Thomas Huizinga Consultant for: Merck, UCB, Bristol Myers Squibb, Biotest AG, Pfizer, GSK, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Abbott, Crescendo Bioscience Inc., Nycomed, Boeringher, Takeda, Zydus, Epirus, Eli Lilly, Jose Antonio Maldonado-Cocco Consultant for: Pfizer, Merck Sharp Dohme, Sanofi – Aventis, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Schering – Plough, Abbott, UCB, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Merck Sharp Dohme, Sanofi – Aventis, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Schering – Plough, Abbott, UCB, Eli Lilly., Marwan Bukhari Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squib, UCB celltech, Roche/Chugai, Pfizer, Abbvie, Merck, Mennarini, Sanofi-aventis, Eli-Lilly, Janssen and Novartis., Frank Buttgereit: None declared

Background Sarilumab, a human IL-6R blocker approved for the treatment of RA, has shown efficacy as monotherapy and in combination with csDMARDs in Phase 3 trials. Objectives We assessed long-term safety from the sarilumab clinical development program in adult patients with RA who received subcutaneous (SC) sarilumab in eight clinical trials and their open-label extensions: MOBILITY (NCT01061736), TARGET (NCT01709578), ASCERTAIN (NCT01768572), EASY (NCT02057250), COMPARE (NCT01764997), ACT11575 (NCT01217814), MONARCH (NCT02332590), ONE (NCT02121210), and the open-label extension EXTEND (NCT01146652). Methods Data (cut-off Jan 15, 2018) were pooled from patients on sarilumab+csDMARD (N=2887) or sarilumab monotherapy (N=471). Patients had received sarilumab 200 mg or 150 mg q2w SC, except for 151 patients from MOBILITY Part A who received 100 mg qw, 150 mg qw, or 100 mg q2w. Treatment-emergent (TE) adverse events (AEs), AEs of special interest (AESIs), and discontinuations were assessed. Results Demographics were similar between combination and monotherapy pools (mean age 52 years; 81–83% female), and 38.7% and 8.5% of patients had received prior bDMARDs. Cumulative drug exposure was 7,985.5 and 798.7 patient-years (PY), with maximum duration 7.3 and 3.5 years. Exposure-adjusted rates of TEAEs, serious AEs, and TEAEs leading to discontinuations were similar (Table). Infections were the most common AESI. Rates of serious infection were 3.7 and 1.0/100 PY for combination and monotherapy, respectively, and were not associated with decreased absolute neutrophil counts (ANCs). Incidences of ALT >3× upper limit of normal and ANC Conclusion The long-term safety profile of sarilumab, either as monotherapy (observed for >3.5 years) or with csDMARD (observed for >7 years), remains stable and consistent with the anticipated profile of an IL-6R blocker. Acknowledgement Study funding and editorial support (Helen Johns, Adelphi) were provided by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. These data were previously presented at the 2018 American College of Rheumatology annual meeting. Disclosure of Interests Roy Fleischmann Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celtrion, Genentech, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB, Yong Lin Shareholder of: Sanofi Genzyme, Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Gregory St John Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, Desiree van der Heijde Consultant for: AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Daiichi, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, Union Chimique Belge, Chunfu Qiu Shareholder of: Sanofi Genzyme, Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Juan Jose Gomez-Reino Grant/research support from: Biogen, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant for: Biogen, Gilead, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pfizer, Roche, Jose Antonio Maldonado-Cocco Consultant for: Pfizer, Merck Sharp Dohme, Sanofi – Aventis, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Schering – Plough, Abbott, UCB, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Merck Sharp Dohme, Sanofi – Aventis, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, Schering – Plough, Abbott, UCB, Eli Lilly., Marina Stanislav Consultant for: R-Pharm, Bruno Seriolo: None declared, Gerd Rudiger Burmester Consultant for: Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme, Speakers bureau: Roche, Sanofi-Genzyme

Author(s): Deodhar, Atul; Gensler, Lianne S; Sieper, Joachim; Clark, Michael; Calderon, Cesar; Wang, Yuhua; Zhou, Yiying; Leu, Jocelyn H; Campbell, Kim; Sweet, Kristen; Harrison, Diane D; Hsia, Elizabeth C; van der Heijde, Desiree | Abstract: ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of ustekinumab in 3 randomized, placebo-controlled studies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Studies 1 and 2 included patients with radiographic axial SpA (anti-tumor necrosis factor [anti-TNF]-naive patients and patients with inadequate response or intolerance to anti-TNF, respectively); study 3 patients had nonradiographic axial SpA.MethodsIn all 3 studies, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous ustekinumab at 45 mg or 90 mg or placebo up to 24 weeks, after which placebo-treated patients were rerandomized to receive ustekinumab at 45 mg or 90 mg. The primary end point in studies 1 and 2 was the proportion of patients who met the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria for 40% improvement in disease activity (achieved an ASAS40 response). The primary end point in study 3 was the proportion of patients who achieved an ASAS20 response. Other disease activity and safety measures were also evaluated. A week 24 analysis of study 1 was preplanned to determine continuation of studies 2 and 3.ResultsFor study 1, the primary and major secondary end points were not met, and the study was discontinued. As a result, studies 2 and 3 were prematurely discontinued before they were fully enrolled. For all 3 studies, neither ustekinumab dose group demonstrated clinically meaningful improvement over placebo on key efficacy end points. The proportion of patients experiencing adverse events in the ustekinumab groups was consistent with that in previous studies.ConclusionIn these 3 placebo-controlled trials, efficacy of ustekinumab in the treatment of axial SpA was not demonstrated. The safety profile was consistent with that of studies in other indications.

ObjectiveTo demonstrate pharmacokinetic equivalence of CT-P10 and innovator rituximab (RTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate responses or intolerances to antitumour necrosis factor agents.MethodsIn this randomised phase I trial, patients with active RA were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 1000 mg CT-P10 or RTX at weeks 0 and 2 (alongside continued methotrexate therapy). Primary endpoints were area under the serum concentration–time curve from time zero to last quantifiable concentration (AUC0–last) and maximum serum concentration after second infusion (Cmax). Additional pharmacokinetic parameters, efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Data are reported up to week 24.Results103 patients were assigned to CT-P10 and 51 to RTX. The 90% CIs for the ratio of geometric means (CT-P10/RTX) for both primary endpoints were within the bioequivalence range of 80%–125% (AUC0–last: 97.7% (90% CI 89.2% to 107.0%); Cmax: 97.6% (90% CI 92.0% to 103.5%)). Pharmacodynamics and efficacy were comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 17.6% of patients in each group at week 24. CT-P10 and RTX displayed similar safety profiles.ConclusionsCT-P10 and RTX demonstrated equivalent pharmacokinetics and comparable efficacy, pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity and safety.Trial registration numberNCT01534884.

Background: Biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are recommended for radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, otherwise known as ankylosing spondylitis, when conventional therapies are not effective. We report efficacy and safety data on ixekizumab, a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17A (IL-17A), in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis who have not previously been treated with bDMARDs. Methods: In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled superiority study of ixekizumab, adult patients with inadequate response or intolerance to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, an established diagnosis of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis, radiographic sacroiliitis centrally defined by modified New York criteria, and at least one spondyloarthritis feature according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) criteria, were recruited from 84 sites (12 countries) in Europe, Asia, and North America. By use of a computer-generated random sequence, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to 80 mg subcutaneous ixekizumab every two (Q2W) or four (Q4W) weeks, 40 mg adalimumab Q2W (active reference group), or placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients achieving an ASAS40 response, a composite measure of clinical improvement in axial spondyloarthritis, at week 16 for both ixekizumab treatment groups versus the placebo group. The adalimumab reference group was included as an in-study active reference for comparison with placebo to provide additional context to interpretation of the ixekizumab study results. Findings: Between June 20, 2016, and Aug 22, 2017, 341 patients were randomly assigned to either the placebo group (n=87), adalimumab group (n=90), ixekizumab Q2W (n=83), or ixekizumab Q4W (n=81). At week 16, compared with placebo (16 [18%] of 87), more patients achieved ASAS40 with ixekizumab Q2W (43 [52%] of 83; p

Guselkumab, a human monoclonal antibody that binds to the p19 subunit of interleukin 23, has been approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Psoriatic arthritis is a common comorbidity of psoriasis with an umet need for novel treatments. We assessed the efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis.We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2a trial at 34 rheumatology and dermatology practices in Canada, Germany, Poland, Romania, Russia, Spain, and the USA. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with active psoriatic arthritis and plaque psoriasis affecting at least 3% of their body surface area, with three or more of 66 tender joints and three or more of 68 swollen joints, who had an inadequate response or intolerance to standard treatments. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) via a central interactive web-response system using computer-generated permuted blocks with a block size of six, stratified by previous anti-tumour necrosis factor-α use, to receive subcutaneous guselkumab 100 mg or placebo at week 0, week 4, and every 8 weeks thereafter for 24 weeks. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to treatment assignment until final database lock at week 56. At week 16, patients with less than 5% improvement in swollen and tender joint counts were eligible for early escape to ustekinumab. At week 24, the remaining placebo-treated patients crossed over to receive guselkumab 100 mg at weeks 24, 28, 36, and 44 and guselkumab-treated patients received a placebo injection at week 24, followed by guselkumab injections at weeks 28, 36, and 44. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with at least 20% improvement at week 24 in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis according to American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment). Safety analyses included patients according to the study drug received. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02319759.Between March 27, 2015, and Jan 17, 2017, we randomly assigned 149 patients to treatment: 100 to guselkumab and 49 to placebo. 17 (35%) of 49 patients in the placebo group and ten (10%) of 100 patients in the guselkumab group were eligible for early escape to ustekinumab at week 16. 29 (59%) of 49 patients in the placebo group crossed over and received guselkumab at week 24. Three (6%) of 49 patients in the placebo group, one (3%) of 29 patients who crossed over from placebo to guselkumab, and six (6%) of 100 patients in the guselkumab group discontinued study treatment before week 44. 58 (58%) of 100 patients in the guselkumab group and nine (18%) of 49 patients in the placebo group achieved an ACR20 response at week 24 (percentage difference 39·7% [95% CI 25·3-54·1]; p0·0001). Between week 0 and week 24, 36 (36%) of 100 guselkumab-treated patients and 16 (33%) of 49 placebo-treated patients had at least one adverse event. The most frequent adverse event was infection in both groups (16 [16%] of 100 patients in the guselkumab group vs ten [20%] of 49 patients in the placebo group). The prevalence of adverse events between week 0 and week 56 in guselkumab-treated patients (51 [40%] of 129) indicated no disproportional increase with longer guselkumab exposure. No deaths occurred.Guselkumab, a novel anti-interleukin 23p19 antibody, significantly improved signs and symptoms of active psoriatic arthritis and was well tolerated during 44 weeks of treatment. The results of this study support further development of guselkumab as a novel and comprehensive treatment in psoriatic arthritis.Janssen ResearchDevelopment.

Objective.To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pomalidomide (POM) on forced vital capacity (FVC), modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), and gastrointestinal (GI) symptomatology over 52 weeks of treatment in patients with interstitial lung disease due to systemic sclerosis (SSc).Methods.Twenty-three adult patients diagnosed with SSc were randomized 1:1 POM:placebo (PBO).Results.Mean change at Week 52 from baseline in predicted FVC% −5.2 and −2.8; mRSS −2.7 and −3.7; and UCLA Scleroderma Clinical Trial Consortium Gastrointestinal Tract (SCTC GIT 2.0) score 0.1 and 0.0, with POM and PBO, respectively. Statistical significance was not achieved for any of these 3 primary endpoints at 52 weeks.Conclusion.Because of recruitment challenges, subject enrollment was discontinued early. In an interim analysis, the study did not meet its Week 52 primary endpoints. Therefore, a decision was made to terminate all study phases. POM was generally well tolerated, with an adverse event profile consistent with the known safety and tolerability profile of POM in other diseases. Study results were neither positive nor negative because too few subjects were enrolled to make meaningful conclusions. Clinical Trials number: NCT01559129.

Background CT-P10 is a biosimilar candidate of innovator rituximab (RTX) that demonstrated a comparable clinical profile to RTX in a phase I randomized controlled trial (RCT) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01534884). Objective This open-label extension (OLE) study (NCT01873443) compared the efficacy and safety of CT-P10 in patients with RA who received CT-P10 from the outset (i.e., from the start of the RCT and also in the OLE; ‘maintenance group’) with those who received RTX during the RCT and switched to CT-P10 during the OLE (‘switch group’). Methods Patients who completed the RCT were recruited. Based on the Disease Activity Score using 28 joints (DAS28) and predefined safety criteria, patients could receive up to two courses of CT-P10 during the OLE. Efficacy [DAS28 and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response], safety and immunogenicity were assessed. Results Eighty-seven patients were enrolled; 58 and 29 had previously received CT-P10 or RTX, respectively, in the RCT. Of these, 38 (65.5%) and 20 (69.0%) were treated with CT-P10 in the OLE and therefore comprised the maintenance and switch groups, respectively. The mean change in DAS28-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) from baseline (week 0 of RCT) at week 24 of the first OLE treatment course in the maintenance and switch groups was −2.7 and −2.4, respectively. The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR responses was also comparable between groups. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 13.2 and 15.0% of patients in the maintenance and switch groups, respectively, at week 24 of the first OLE course. CT-P10 treatment was well-tolerated when administered for up to 2 years or after switching from RTX. Conclusion In this study population, comparable efficacy and safety profiles were observed in patients who switched from RTX to CT-P10 and those maintained on CT-P10 throughout treatment. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40259-017-0233-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.