Eduardo Mysler

Interleukin‐6 receptor inhibition with tocilizumab reduces disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis with inadequate response to disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs: The tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drug therapy study

OBJECTIVE To examine the efficacy and safety of the humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab combined with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS A total of 1,220 patients were randomized (2:1 ratio) in the phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter TOWARD (Tocilizumab in Combination With Traditional DMARD Therapy) study. Patients remained on stable doses of DMARDs and received tocilizumab 8 mg/kg or placebo (control group) every 4 weeks for 24 weeks. RESULTS At week 24, the proportion of patients achieving a response according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20) was significantly greater in the tocilizumab plus DMARD group than in the control group (61% versus 25%; P<0.0001). Secondary end points including 50% or 70% improvement (ACR50/70), the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28), DAS28 remission responses (DAS28<2.6), European League Against Rheumatism responses, and systemic markers such as the C-reactive protein and hemoglobin levels showed superiority of tocilizumab plus DMARDs over DMARDs alone. Seventy-three percent of patients in the tocilizumab group had >or=1 adverse event (AE), compared with 61% of patients in the control group. AEs leading to withdrawal from the study were infrequent (4% of patients in the tocilizumab group and 2% of those in the control group). Serious AEs occurred in 6.7% and 4.3% of patients in the tocilizumab and control groups, respectively, and serious infections occurred in 2.7% and 1.9%, respectively. Elevations in the alanine aminotransferase level, from normal at baseline to >3-fold the upper limit of normal, occurred in 4% of patients in the tocilizumab group and 1% of those in the control group, and elevated total cholesterol levels were observed in 23% and 6% of patients, respectively. Sixteen patients started lipid-lowering therapy during the study. Grade 3 neutropenia occurred in 3.7% of patients receiving tocilizumab and none of the patients in the control group, and no grade 4 neutropenia was reported. CONCLUSION Tocilizumab combined with any of the DMARDs evaluated was safe and effective in reducing articular and systemic symptoms in patients with an inadequate response to these agents.

Mycophenolate Mofetil versus Cyclophosphamide for Induction Treatment of Lupus Nephritis

Recent studies have suggested that mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) may offer advantages over intravenous cyclophosphamide (IVC) for the treatment of lupus nephritis, but these therapies have not been compared in an international randomized, controlled trial. Here, we report the comparison of MMF and IVC as induction treatment for active lupus nephritis in a multinational, two-phase (induction and maintenance) study. We randomly assigned 370 patients with classes III through V lupus nephritis to open-label MMF (target dosage 3 g/d) or IVC (0.5 to 1.0 g/m(2) in monthly pulses) in a 24-wk induction study. Both groups received prednisone, tapered from a maximum starting dosage of 60 mg/d. The primary end point was a prespecified decrease in urine protein/creatinine ratio and stabilization or improvement in serum creatinine. Secondary end points included complete renal remission, systemic disease activity and damage, and safety. Overall, we did not detect a significantly different response rate between the two groups: 104 (56.2%) of 185 patients responded to MMF compared with 98 (53.0%) of 185 to IVC. Secondary end points were also similar between treatment groups. There were nine deaths in the MMF group and five in the IVC group. We did not detect significant differences between the MMF and IVC groups with regard to rates of adverse events, serious adverse events, or infections. Although most patients in both treatment groups experienced clinical improvement, the study did not meet its primary objective of showing that MMF was superior to IVC as induction treatment for lupus nephritis.

Sifalimumab, a Human Anti–Interferon‐α Monoclonal Antibody, in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Phase I Randomized, Controlled, Dose‐Escalation Study

Objective To evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple intravenous (IV) doses of sifalimumab in adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Methods In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential dose-escalation study, patients were randomized 3:1 to receive IV sifalimumab (0.3, 1.0, 3.0, or 10.0 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks to week 26, then followed up for 24 weeks. Safety assessment included recording of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated, and disease activity was assessed. Results Of 161 patients, 121 received sifalimumab (26 received 0.3 mg/kg; 25, 1.0 mg/kg; 27, 3.0 mg/kg; and 43, 10 mg/kg) and 40 received placebo. Patients were predominantly female (95.7%). At baseline, patients had moderate-to-severe disease activity (mean SLE Disease Activity Index score 11.0), and most (75.2%) had a high type I interferon (IFN) gene signature. In the sifalimumab group versus the placebo group, the incidence of ≥1 treatment-emergent AE was 92.6% versus 95.0%, ≥1 serious AE was 22.3% versus 27.5%, and ≥1 infection was 67.8% versus 62.5%; discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 9.1% versus 7.5%, and death occurred in 3.3% (n = 4) versus 2.5% (n = 1). Serum sifalimumab concentrations increased in a linear and dose-proportional manner. Inhibition of the type I IFN gene signature was sustained during treatment in patients with a high baseline signature. No statistically significant differences in clinical activity (SLEDAI and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group score) between sifalimumab and placebo were observed. However, when adjusted for excess burst steroids, SLEDAI change from baseline showed a positive trend over time. A trend toward normal complement C3 or C4 level at week 26 was seen in the sifalimumab groups compared with baseline. Conclusion The observed safety/tolerability and clinical activity profile of sifalimumab support its continued clinical development for SLE.

Canakinumab reduces the risk of acute gouty arthritis flares during initiation of allopurinol treatment: results of a double-blind, randomised study

Objective This study assessed the efficacy and safety of canakinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin 1β monoclonal antibody, for prophylaxis against acute gouty arthritis flares in patients initiating urate-lowering treatment. Methods In this double-blind, double-dummy, dose-ranging study, 432 patients with gouty arthritis initiating allopurinol treatment were randomised 1:1:1:1:1:1:2 to receive: a single dose of canakinumab, 25, 50, 100, 200, or 300 mg subcutaneously; 4×4-weekly doses of canakinumab (50+50+25+25 mg subcutaneously); or daily colchicine 0.5 mg orally for 16 weeks. Patients recorded details of flares in diaries. The study aimed to determine the canakinumab dose having equivalent efficacy to colchicine 0.5 mg at 16 weeks. Results A dose-response for canakinumab was not apparent with any of the four predefined dose-response models. The estimated canakinumab dose with equivalent efficacy to colchicine was below the range of doses tested. At 16 weeks, there was a 62% to 72% reduction in the mean number of flares per patient for canakinumab doses ≥50 mg versus colchicine based on a negative binomial model (rate ratio: 0.28–0.38, p≤0.0083), and the percentage of patients experiencing ≥1 flare was significantly lower for all canakinumab doses (15% to 27%) versus colchicine (44%, p<0.05). There was a 64% to 72% reduction in the risk of experiencing ≥1 flare for canakinumab doses ≥50 mg versus colchicine at 16 weeks (hazard ratio (HR): 0.28–0.36, p≤0.05). The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups. Conclusions Single canakinumab doses ≥50 mg or four 4-weekly doses provided superior prophylaxis against flares compared with daily colchicine 0.5 mg.

Efficacy and Safety of Ocrelizumab in Active Proliferative Lupus Nephritis: Results From a Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study†

OBJECTIVE To investigate the efficacy and safety of ocrelizumab in patients with class III/IV lupus nephritis (LN). METHODS Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive placebo, 400 mg ocrelizumab, or 1,000 mg ocrelizumab given as an intravenous infusion on days 1 and 15, followed by a single infusion at week 16 and every 16 weeks thereafter, accompanied by background glucocorticoids plus either mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or the Euro-Lupus Nephritis Trial (ELNT) regimen (cyclophosphamide followed by azathioprine). The study was terminated early due to an imbalance in serious infections in ocrelizumab-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients. We report week 48 efficacy data for patients receiving ≥32 weeks of treatment (n = 223) and safety results for all treated patients (n = 378). RESULTS The overall renal response rate was 54.7%, 66.7%, 67.1%, and 66.9% in the placebo-treated, 400 mg ocrelizumab-treated, 1,000 mg ocrelizumab-treated, and combined ocrelizumab-treated groups, respectively. The associated treatment difference versus placebo for the combined ocrelizumab-treated groups was 12.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.8, 26.1) (P = 0.065), with similar differences observed for both ocrelizumab-treated groups. Ocrelizumab versus placebo treatment differences were apparent in patients receiving the background ELNT regimen, but not in those receiving background MMF. A numerically greater proportion of ocrelizumab-treated patients had a ≥50% reduction in the urinary protein:urinary creatinine ratio at 48 weeks compared with placebo-treated patients (placebo-treated patients, 58.7%; 400 mg ocrelizumab-treated patients, 70.7%; 1,000 mg ocrelizumab-treated patients, 68.5%). Serious adverse events occurred in 27.2% of placebo-treated patients, 35.7% of 400 mg ocrelizumab-treated patients, and 22.0% of 1,000 mg ocrelizumab-treated patients. Corresponding serious infection rates (events/100 patient-years) were 18.7 (95% CI 12.2, 28.7), 28.8 (95% CI 20.6, 40.3), and 25.1 (95% CI 17.4, 36.1), respectively. The imbalance in serious infections with ocrelizumab occurred with background MMF but not with the background ELNT regimen. CONCLUSION In patients with active LN, overall renal response rates with ocrelizumab were numerically but not statistically significantly superior to those with placebo. Ocrelizumab treatment was associated with a higher rate of serious infections in the subgroup receiving background MMF.

Subcutaneous abatacept versus intravenous abatacept : a phase IIIb noninferiority study in patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate.

Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous (IV) abatacept. Methods In this phase IIIb double-blind, double-dummy, 6-month study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate responses to methotrexate were randomized to receive 125 mg SC abatacept on days 1 and 8 and weekly thereafter (plus an IV loading dose [∼10 mg/kg] on day 1) or IV abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 4 weeks thereafter. The primary end point for determining the noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept was the proportion of patients in each group meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at month 6. Other efficacy end points, immunogenicity, and safety were also assessed. Results Of 1,457 patients, 693 of 736 (94.2%) treated with SC abatacept and 676 of 721 (93.8%) treated with IV abatacept completed 6 months. At month 6, 76.0% (95% confidence interval 72.9, 79.2) of SC abatacept–treated patients versus 75.8% (95% confidence interval 72.6, 79.0) of IV abatacept–treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (estimated difference between groups 0.3% [95% confidence interval –4.2, 4.8]), confirming noninferiority of SC abatacept to IV abatacept. Onset and magnitude of ACR responses and disease activity and physical function improvements were comparable between the SC and IV abatacept–treated groups. The proportions of adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs over 6 months were 67.0% and 4.2%, respectively, in the SC abatacept–treated group and 65.2% and 4.9%, respectively, in the IV abatacept–treated group, with comparable frequencies of serious infections, malignancies, and autoimmune events between groups. SC injection site reactions (mostly mild) occurred in 19 SC abatacept (IV placebo)–treated patients (2.6%) and 18 IV abatacept (SC placebo)–treated patients (2.5%). Abatacept-induced antibodies occurred in 1.1% of SC abatacept–treated patients and 2.3% of IV abatacept–treated patients. Conclusion SC abatacept provides efficacy and safety comparable with that of IV abatacept, with low immunogenicity and high retention rates, consistent with the established IV abatacept profile. Rates of injection site reactions were low. SC abatacept will provide additional treatment options, such as an alternative route of administration, for patients with RA.

A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study of the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (SUMMACTA study)

Objectives This study compared the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV) formulations of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with an inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD). Methods Patients (n=1262) were randomly assigned to receive tocilizumab-SC 162 mg weekly+placebo-IV every 4 weeks or tocilizumab-IV 8 mg/kg every 4 weeks+placebo-SC weekly in combination with traditional DMARD. The primary outcome was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of tocilizumab-SC to tocilizumab-IV with regard to the proportion of patients in each group achieving an American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 24 using a 12% non-inferiority margin (NIM). Secondary outcomes were disease activity score using 28 joints (DAS28), ACR responses, health assessment questionnaire scores and safety assessments. Results At week 24, 69.4% (95% CI 65.5 to 73.2) of tocilizumab-SC-treated patients versus 73.4% (95% CI 69.6 to 77.1) of tocilizumab-IV-treated patients achieved an ACR20 response (weighted difference between groups −4.0%, 95% CI −9.2 to 1.2); the 12% NIM was met. ACR50/70 responses, DAS28 and physical function improvements were comparable between the tocilizumab-SC and tocilizumab-IV groups. The safety profiles of tocilizumab-SC and tocilizumab-IV were similar, and the most common adverse event was infection. Injection-site reactions (ISR) occurred more frequently in the tocilizumab-SC group than in the tocilizumab-IV (placebo-SC) group. No anaphylaxis was reported over the 24 weeks. Conclusions Tocilizumab-SC 162 mg weekly demonstrated comparable efficacy to tocilizumab-IV 8 mg/kg. The safety profile of tocilizumab-SC is consistent with the known and well-established safety profile of tocilizumab-IV, with the exception of a higher incidence of ISR, which were more common with tocilizumab-SC administration.

Efficacy and safety of subcutaneous tocilizumab versus intravenous tocilizumab in combination with traditional DMARDs in patients with RA at week 97 (SUMMACTA)

Objectives To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of subcutaneous (SC) tocilizumab (TCZ) versus intravenous (IV) TCZ, including switching formulations, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Methods Patients (n=1262) were randomised 1:1 to receive TCZ-SC 162 mg weekly (qw)+placebo-IV every four weeks (q4w) or TCZ-IV 8 mg/kg q4w+placebo-SC qw in combination with DMARD(s). After a 24-week double-blind period, patients receiving TCZ-SC were re-randomised 11:1 to TCZ-SC (n=521) or TCZ-IV (TCZ-SC–IV, n=48), and patients receiving TCZ-IV were re-randomised 2:1 to TCZ-IV (n=372) or TCZ-SC (TCZ-IV–SC; n=186). Maintenance of clinical responses and safety through week 97 were assessed. Results The proportions of patients who achieved American College of Rheumatology (ACR)20/50/70 responses, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints remission and improvement from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index ≥0.3 were sustained through week 97 and comparable across arms. TCZ-SC had a comparable safety profile to TCZ-IV through week 97, except that injection site reactions (ISRs) were more common with TCZ-SC. Safety profiles in patients who switched were similar to those in patients who received continuous TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment. The proportion of patients who developed anti-TCZ antibodies remained low across treatment arms. No association between anti-TCZ antibody development and clinical response or adverse events was observed. Conclusions The long-term efficacy and safety of TCZ-SC was maintained and comparable to that of TCZ-IV, except for ISRs. Profiles in patients who switched formulations were comparable to those in patients who received TCZ-IV or TCZ-SC. TCZ-SC provides additional treatment options for patients with RA. Trial registration number NCT01194414.

The effect of antidrug antibodies on the sustainable efficacy of biologic therapies in rheumatoid arthritis: practical consequences

Biologic therapies, predominantly TNF-α inhibitors, have revolutionized the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, their clinical utility can be limited by the development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs). Immunogenicity is a complex phenomenon related to various drug, disease, and patient characteristics, and may be more common with the monoclonal antibodies than with etanercept, a soluble TNF receptor-Fc immunoglobulin fusion protein. Neutralizing antibodies – those that hinder bioactivity by preventing drug molecules from binding to TNF – are correlated with reduced serum drug concentrations, loss of therapeutic response, adverse events, and treatment discontinuation. Cost-effective use of these agents will depend on further research into drug and ADA assays, and how they should guide dose reduction or switching strategies.

A randomised phase IIb study of mavrilimumab, a novel GM–CSF receptor alpha monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Objectives Despite the therapeutic value of current rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments, agents with alternative modes of action are required. Mavrilimumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting the granulocyte–macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor-α, was evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe RA. Methods In a phase IIb study (NCT01706926), patients with inadequate response to ≥1 synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug(s), Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28)−C reactive protein (CRP)/erythrocyte sedimentation rate ≥3.2, ≥4 swollen joints despite methotrexate (MTX) were randomised 1:1:1:1 to subcutaneous mavrilimumab (150, 100, 30 mg), or placebo every other week (eow), plus MTX for 24 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were DAS28−CRP change from baseline to week 12 and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response rate (week 24). Results 326 patients were randomised (150 mg, n=79; 100 mg, n=85; 30 mg, n=81; placebo, n=81); 305 completed the study (September 2012–June 2013). Mavrilimumab treatment significantly reduced DAS28−CRP scores from baseline compared with placebo (change from baseline (SE); 150 mg: −1.90 (0.14), 100 mg: −1.64 (0.13), 30 mg: −1.37 (0.14), placebo: −0.68 (0.14); p<0.001; all dosages compared with placebo). Significantly more mavrilimumab-treated patients achieved ACR20 compared with placebo (week 24: 73.4%, 61.2%, 50.6% vs 24.7%, respectively (p<0.001)). Adverse events were reported in 43 (54.4%), 36 (42.4%), 41 (50.6%) and 38 (46.9%) patients in the mavrilimumab 150, 100, 30 mg eow and placebo groups, respectively. No treatment-related safety signals were identified. Conclusions Mavrilimumab significantly decreased RA disease activity, with clinically meaningful responses observed 1 week after treatment initiation, representing a novel mechanism of action with persuasive therapeutic potential. Trial registration number NCT01706926; results.