Patrick Durez

Effects of AIN457, a Fully Human Antibody to Interleukin-17A, on Psoriasis, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Uveitis

A human antibody to interleukin-17A is well tolerated and may be effective in the treatment of psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and noninfectious uveitis. Stopping Inflammation in Its Tracks Inflammation—characterized by redness, swelling, and pain and derived from the Latin word inflammare (to set on fire)—is the body’s principal defense against infection and injury. Once the infection has been squelched by the immune system, the inflammatory response is usually switched off. Sometimes, however, immune cells activated during inflammation elude the “off switch,” resulting in tissue destruction and various diseases—including cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, and skin disorders such as psoriasis. Cytokines that activate immune cells are key drivers of inflammation. To address whether blocking one of these cytokines, interleukin-17A (IL-17A), might be a useful therapeutic strategy for treating inflammatory diseases, Hueber and colleagues used a human monoclonal antibody (AIN457) against IL-17A to treat patients in three small proof-of-concept trials for psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and uveitis (eye inflammation). Their results demonstrate that IL-17A participates in these diseases and that the antibody against this cytokine may be an effective therapeutic agent. The proinflammatory cytokine IL-17A is produced by T helper 17 (TH17) cells and affects many different cell types including macrophages and dendritic cells of the immune system, as well as epithelial, endothelial, and skin cells. IL-17A has been implicated in psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and uveitis, but its exact role is unclear. The etiologies and symptoms of these three diseases are very different. TH17 and TH1 cells have been implicated in both psoriasis (characterized by excessive turnover of skin cells resulting in scaly skin patches) and uveitis (intraocular inflammation that can lead to vision loss). In contrast, in the autoimmune disease rheumatoid arthritis, autoreactive T and B cells together with autoantibodies promote prolonged inflammation, ultimately resulting in the destruction of cartilage and bone. In their three proof-of-concept trials, Hueber and co-workers treated a total of 60 patients with the human monoclonal antibody AIN457 at different doses and observed no major adverse effects. Although the trials were small and the results were preliminary, improvements were seen in all three disease groups. Psoriasis patients receiving AIN457 showed reduced scaly skin patches, decreased production of inflammatory cytokines, and a reduction in T cells infiltrating the skin lesions compared with placebo-treated patients. After receiving infusions of AIN457, rheumatoid arthritis patients exhibited reduced inflammation of the synovial joints as shown by improvements in three different clinical scores compared with placebo-treated patients. Meanwhile, patients with uveitis treated with AIN457 showed improved visual acuity, reduced ocular inflammation, or a reduced need for steroid drugs after 8 weeks. These encouraging results warrant larger clinical trials to assess further the safety and efficacy of AIN457 for treating psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and uveitis and perhaps other inflammatory diseases in which IL-17A has been implicated. Interleukin-17A (IL-17A) is elaborated by the T helper 17 (TH17) subset of TH cells and exhibits potent proinflammatory properties in animal models of autoimmunity, including collagen-induced arthritis, experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, and experimental autoimmune uveitis. To determine whether IL-17A mediates human inflammatory diseases, we investigated the efficacy and safety of AIN457, a human antibody to IL-17A, in patients with psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic noninfectious uveitis. Patients with chronic plaque-type psoriasis (n = 36), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 52), or chronic noninfectious uveitis (n = 16) were enrolled in clinical trials to evaluate the effects of neutralizing IL-17A by AIN457 at doses of 3 to 10 mg/kg, given intravenously. We evaluated efficacy by measuring the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), the American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) for rheumatoid arthritis, or the number of responders for uveitis, as defined by either vision improvement or reduction in ocular inflammation or corticosteroid dose. AIN457 treatment induced clinically relevant responses of variable magnitude in patients suffering from each of these diverse immune-mediated diseases. Variable response rates may be due to heterogeneity in small patient populations, differential pathogenic roles of IL-17A in these diseases, and the different involvement or activation of IL-17A–producing cells. The rates of adverse events, including infections, were similar in the AIN457 and placebo groups. These results support a role for IL-17A in the pathophysiology of diverse inflammatory diseases including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and noninfectious uveitis.

Comparison of methotrexate monotherapy with a combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active, early, moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (COMET): a randomised, double-blind, parallel treatment trial

BACKGROUND Remission and radiographic non-progression are goals in the treatment of early rheumatoid arthritis. The aim of the combination of methotrexate and etanercept in active early rheumatoid arthritis (COMET) trial is to compare remission and radiographic non-progression in patients treated with methotrexate monotherapy or with methotrexate plus etanercept. METHODS 542 outpatients who were methotrexate-naive and had had early moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis for 3-24 months were randomly assigned to receive either methotrexate alone titrated up from 7.5 mg a week to a maximum of 20 mg a week by week 8 or methotrexate (same titration) plus etanercept 50 mg a week. Coprimary endpoints at 52 weeks were remission measured with the disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28) and radiographic non-progression measured with modified total Sharp score. Treatment was allocated with a computerised randomisation and enrolment system, which masked both participants and carers. Analysis was done by modified intention to treat with last observation carried forward for missing data. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00195494). FINDINGS 274 participants were randomly assigned to receive combined treatment and 268 methotrexate alone. 132 of 265 (50%, 95% CI 44-56%) patients who took combined treatment and were available for assessment achieved clinical remission compared with 73 of 263 (28%, 23-33%) taking methotrexate alone (effect difference 22.05%, 95%CI 13.96-30.15%, p<0.0001). 487 evaluable patients had severe disease (DAS28>5.1). 196 of 246 (80%, 75-85%) and 135 of 230 (59%, 53-65%), respectively, achieved radiographic non-progression (20.98%, 12.97-29.09%, p<0.0001). Serious adverse events were similar between groups. INTERPRETATION Both clinical remission and radiographic non-progression are achievable goals in patients with early severe rheumatoid arthritis within 1 year of combined treatment with etanercept plus methotrexate. FUNDING Wyeth Research.

Treating rheumatoid arthritis to target: 2014 update of the recommendations of an international task force

Background Reaching the therapeutic target of remission or low-disease activity has improved outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) significantly. The treat-to-target recommendations, formulated in 2010, have provided a basis for implementation of a strategic approach towards this therapeutic goal in routine clinical practice, but these recommendations need to be re-evaluated for appropriateness and practicability in the light of new insights. Objective To update the 2010 treat-to-target recommendations based on systematic literature reviews (SLR) and expert opinion. Methods A task force of rheumatologists, patients and a nurse specialist assessed the SLR results and evaluated the individual items of the 2010 recommendations accordingly, reformulating many of the items. These were subsequently discussed, amended and voted upon by >40 experts, including 5 patients, from various regions of the world. Levels of evidence, strengths of recommendations and levels of agreement were derived. Results The update resulted in 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations. The previous recommendations were partly adapted and their order changed as deemed appropriate in terms of importance in the view of the experts. The SLR had now provided also data for the effectiveness of targeting low-disease activity or remission in established rather than only early disease. The role of comorbidities, including their potential to preclude treatment intensification, was highlighted more strongly than before. The treatment aim was again defined as remission with low-disease activity being an alternative goal especially in patients with long-standing disease. Regular follow-up (every 1–3 months during active disease) with according therapeutic adaptations to reach the desired state was recommended. Follow-up examinations ought to employ composite measures of disease activity that include joint counts. Additional items provide further details for particular aspects of the disease, especially comorbidity and shared decision-making with the patient. Levels of evidence had increased for many items compared with the 2010 recommendations, and levels of agreement were very high for most of the individual recommendations (≥9/10). Conclusions The 4 overarching principles and 10 recommendations are based on stronger evidence than before and are supposed to inform patients, rheumatologists and other stakeholders about strategies to reach optimal outcomes of RA.

Golimumab, a human anti–tumor necrosis factor α monoclonal antibody, injected subcutaneously every four weeks in methotrexate‐naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Twenty‐four–week results of a phase III, multicenter, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study of golimumab before methotrexate as first‐line therapy for early‐onset rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE To assess the safety and efficacy of golimumab in methotrexate (MTX)-naive patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS MTX-naive patients with RA (n = 637) were randomized to receive placebo plus MTX (group 1), golimumab 100 mg plus placebo (group 2), golimumab 50 mg plus MTX (group 3), or golimumab 100 mg plus MTX (group 4). Subcutaneous injections of golimumab or placebo were administered every 4 weeks. The dosage of MTX/placebo capsules started at 10 mg/week and escalated to 20 mg/week. The primary end point, the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR50 response) at week 24, required significant differences between groups 3 and 4 combined (combined group) versus group 1 and significant differences in a pairwise comparison (group 3 or group 4 versus group 1). RESULTS An intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the ACR50 response at week 24 did not show a significant difference between the combined group and group 1 (38.4% and 29.4%, respectively; P=0.053), while a post hoc modified ITT analysis (excluding 3 untreated patients) of the ACR50 response showed statistically significant differences between the combined group and group 1 (38.5% versus 29.4%; P=0.049) and between group 3 (40.5%; P=0.038) but not group 4 (36.5%; P=0.177) and group 1. Group 2 was noninferior to group 1 for the ACR50 response at week 24 (33.1%; 95% confidence interval lower bound -5.2%; predefined delta value for noninferiority -10%). The combination of golimumab plus MTX demonstrated a significantly better response compared with placebo plus MTX in most other efficacy parameters, including response/remission according to the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints. Serious adverse events occurred in 7%, 3%, 6%, and 6% of patients in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION Although the primary end point was not met, the modified ITT analysis of the primary end point and other prespecified efficacy measures demonstrated that the efficacy of golimumab plus MTX is better than, and the efficacy of golimumab alone is similar to, the efficacy of MTX alone in reducing RA signs and symptoms in MTX-naive patients, with no unexpected safety concerns.

Clinical efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept in methotrexate-naive patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and poor prognostic factors. Methods: In this double-blind, phase IIIb study, patients with RA for 2 years or less were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to receive abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) plus methotrexate, or placebo plus methotrexate. Patients were methotrexate-naive and seropositive for rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic citrullinated protein (CCP) type 2 or both and had radiographic evidence of joint erosions. The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients achieving disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)-defined remission (C-reactive protein) and joint damage progression (Genant-modified Sharp total score; TS) at year 1. Safety was monitored throughout. Results: At baseline, patients had a mean DAS28 of 6.3, a mean TS of 7.1 and mean disease duration of 6.5 months; 96.5% and 89.0% of patients were RF or anti-CCP2 seropositive, respectively. At year 1, a significantly greater proportion of abatacept plus methotrexate-treated patients achieved remission (41.4% vs 23.3%; p<0.001) and there was significantly less radiographic progression (mean change in TS 0.63 vs 1.06; p = 0.040) versus methotrexate alone. Over 1 year, the frequency of adverse events (84.8% vs 83.4%), serious adverse events (7.8% vs 7.9%), serious infections (2.0% vs 2.0%), autoimmune disorders (2.3% vs 2.0%) and malignancies (0.4% vs 0%) was comparable for abatacept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone. Conclusions: In a methotrexate-naive population with early RA and poor prognostic factors, the combination of abatacept and methotrexate provided significantly better clinical and radiographic efficacy compared with methotrexate alone and had a comparable, favourable safety profile.

Golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study

OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacology of subcutaneous administration of golimumab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with methotrexate (MTX). METHODS Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blinded manner to receive injections of placebo plus MTX or 50 mg or 100 mg golimumab every 2 or 4 weeks plus MTX through week 48. Patients originally assigned to receive injections every 2 weeks had the interval increased to every 4 weeks starting at week 20. The primary end point was the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 16. The study was powered to detect a difference in the primary end point when the combined golimumab groups and at least 1 of the individual dose groups were compared with placebo. RESULTS The primary end point was attained. Sixty-one percent of patients in the combined golimumab plus MTX dose groups achieved an ACR20 response at week 16 compared with 37% of patients in the placebo plus MTX group (P=0.010). In addition, 79% of patients in the group receiving 100 mg golimumab every 2 weeks achieved an ACR20 response (P<0.001 versus placebo). Through week 20 (after which patients receiving placebo were switched to active infliximab therapy), serious adverse events were reported in 9% of patients in the combined golimumab groups and in 6% of patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSION Golimumab plus MTX effectively reduces the signs and symptoms of RA and is generally well tolerated in patients with an inadequate response to MTX.

Efficacy and safety of secukinumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a phase II, dose-finding, double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled study

Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-interleukin-17A antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Patients (n=237) with inadequate response to methotrexate were randomly assigned to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of secukinumab 25 mg, 75 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at week 16. Results Demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable across all treatment groups. The primary efficacy endpoint was not achieved: the proportion of ACR20 responders at week 16 with secukinumab 25–300 mg was 36.0–53.7% versus placebo (34%). Disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)–C-reactive protein (CRP) was a secondary endpoint and clinically relevant decreases with secukinumab 75–300 mg were reported versus placebo. Serum high sensitivity CRP levels at week 16 were significantly reduced with secukinumab 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg doses versus placebo. The safety profile of secukinumab was consistent with that seen with other biological agents. Most adverse events (AE) were mild to moderate in severity. Infections were slightly more frequent with secukinumab than placebo. Six serious AE were reported: secukinumab 75 mg (one), secukinumab 300 mg (four) and placebo (one). Conclusions ACR20 response rates differed between secukinumab 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg doses and placebo; however, the primary efficacy endpoint was not achieved. Greater decreases in DAS28 were observed with secukinumab 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg than placebo. There were no unexpected safety signals and no specific organ-related toxicities. Further trials with secukinumab in the treatment of RA are warranted.

Maintenance, reduction, or withdrawal of etanercept after treatment with etanercept and methotrexate in patients with moderate rheumatoid arthritis (PRESERVE): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Clinical remission and low disease activity are essential treatment targets in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Although moderately active rheumatoid arthritis is common, treatment effects in moderate disease have not been well studied. Additionally, optimum use of biologics needs further investigation, including the use of induction, maintenance, and withdrawal treatment strategies. The aim of the PRESERVE trial was to assess whether low disease activity would be sustained with reduced doses or withdrawal of etanercept in patients with moderately active disease. METHODS In a randomised controlled trial, patients aged between 18 and 70 years with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis (disease activity score in 28 joints [DAS28] >3.2 and ≤5.1) despite treatment with methotrexate were enrolled at 80 centres in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and Australia between March 6, 2008, and Sept 9, 2009. To be eligible, patients had to have been receiving 15-25 mg of methotrexate every week for at least 8 weeks. In an open-label period of 36 weeks, all patients were given 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate every week. To be eligible for a subsequent double-blind period of 52 weeks, participants had to have achieved sustained low disease activity. These patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) by an interactive voice-response system to one of three treatment groups: 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, 25 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, or placebo plus methotrexate. Patients were stratified in blocks of three by DAS28 response (low disease activity or remission) at week 36. Patients, investigators, data analysts, and study staff were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with low disease activity at week 88 in the groups given 50 mg etanercept or placebo in the double-blind period. A conditional primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving 25 mg etanercept who achieved low disease activity. Modified intention-to-treat populations were used for analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00565409. FINDINGS 604 (72.4%) of 834 enrolled patients were eligible for the double-blind period, of whom 202 were assigned to 50 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, 202 to 25 mg etanercept plus methotrexate, and 200 to placebo plus methotrexate. At week 88, 166 (82.6%) of 201 patients who had received at least one dose of 50 mg etanercept and one or more DAS28 evaluations had low disease activity, compared with 84 (42.6%) of 197 who had received placebo (mean difference 40.8%, 95% CI 32.5-49.1%; p<0.0001). Additionally, 159 (79.1%) of 201 patients given 25 mg etanercept had low disease activity at week 88 (mean difference from placebo 35.9%, 27.0-44.8%; p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION Conventional or reduced doses of etanercept with methotrexate in patients with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis more effectively maintain low disease activity than does methotrexate alone after withdrawal of etanercept. FUNDING Pfizer.

Impact of T-cell costimulation modulation in patients with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis or very early rheumatoid arthritis: a clinical and imaging study of abatacept (the ADJUST trial)

Background Several agents provide treatment for established rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but a crucial therapeutic goal is to delay/prevent progression of undifferentiated arthritis (UA) or very early RA. Objective To determine the impact of T-cell costimulation modulation in patients with UA or very early RA. Methods In this double-blind, phase II, placebocontrolled, 2-year study, anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide (CCP)2-positive patients with UA (not fulfilling the ACR criteria for RA) and clinical synovitis of two or more joints were randomised to abatacept (∼10 mg/kg) or placebo for 6 months; the study drug was then terminated. The primary end point was development of RA (by ACR criteria) at year 1. Patients were monitored by radiography, MRI, CCP2, rheumatoid factor and 28 joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28) over 2 years. Results At year 1, 12/26 (46%) abatacept-treated versus 16/24 (67%) placebo-treated patients developed RA (difference (95% CI) −20.5% (−47.4% to 7.8%)). Adjusted mean changes from baseline to year 1 in Genant-modified Sharp radiographic scores for abatacepttreated versus placebo-treated patients, respectively, were 0 versus 1.1 for total score, and 0 versus 0.9 for erosion score. Mean changes from baseline to year 1 in MRI erosion, osteitis and synovitis scores were 0, 0.2 and 0.2, respectively, versus 5.0, 6.7 and 2.3 in the abatacept versus placebo groups. Safety was comparable between groups; serious adverse events occurred in one patient (3.6%) in each group. Conclusion Abatacept delayed progression of UA/very early RA in some patients. An impact on radiographic and MRI inhibition was seen, which was maintained for 6 months after treatment stopped. This suggests that it is possible to alter the progression of RA by modulating T-cell responses at a very early stage of disease. Trial registration number NCT00124449.

Adjustment of therapy in rheumatoid arthritis on the basis of achievement of stable low disease activity with adalimumab plus methotrexate or methotrexate alone: the randomised controlled OPTIMA trial

BACKGROUND Biological agents offer good control of rheumatoid arthritis, but the long-term benefits of achieving low disease activity with a biological agent plus methotrexate or methotrexate alone are unclear. The OPTIMA trial assessed different treatment adjustment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis attaining (or not) stable low disease activity with adalimumab plus methotrexate or methotrexate monotherapy. METHODS This trial was done at 161 sites worldwide. Patients with early (<1 year duration) rheumatoid arthritis naive to methotrexate were randomly allocated (by interactive voice response system, in a 1:1 ratio, block size four) to adalimumab (40 mg every other week) plus methotrexate (initiated at 7·5 mg/week, increased by 2·5 mg every 1-2 weeks to a maximum weekly dose of 20 mg by week 8) or placebo plus methotrexate for 26 weeks (period 1). Patients in the adalimumab plus methotrexate group who completed period 1 and achieved the stable low disease activity target (28-joint disease activity score with C-reactive protein [DAS28]<3·2 at weeks 22 and 26) were randomised to adalimumab-continuation or adalimumab-withdrawal for an additional 52 weeks (period 2). Patients achieving the target with initial methotrexate continued methotrexate-monotherapy. Inadequate responders were offered adalimumab plus methotrexate. All patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation in period 1. During period 2, treatment reallocation of patients who achieved the target was masked to patients and investigators; patients who did not achieve the target remained masked to original randomisation, but were aware of the subsequent assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite measure of DAS28 of less than 3·2 at week 78 and radiographic non-progression from baseline to week 78, compared between adalimumab-continuation and methotrexate-monotherapy. Adverse events were monitored throughout period 2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00420927. FINDINGS The study was done between Dec 28, 2006, and Aug 3, 2010. 1636 patients were assessed and 1032 were randomised in period 1 (515 to adalimumab plus methotrexate; 517 to placebo plus methotrexate). 466 patients in the adalimumab plus methotrexate group completed period 1; 207 achieved the stable low disease activity target, of whom 105 were rerandomised to adalimumab-continuation. 460 patients in the placebo plus methotrexate group completed period 1; 112 achieved the stable low disease activity target and continued methotrexate-monotherapy. 73 of 105 (70%) patients in the adalimumab-continuation group and 61 of 112 (54%) patients in the methotrexate-monotherapy group achieved the primary endpoint at week 78 (mean difference 15% [95% CI 2-28%], p=0·0225). Patients achieving the stable low disease activity target on adalimumab plus methotrexate who withdrew adalimumab mostly maintained their good responses. Overall, 706 of 926 patients in period 2 had an adverse event, of which 82 were deemed serious; however, distribution of adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION Treatment to a stable low disease activity target resulted in improved clinical, functional, and structural outcomes, with both adalimumab-continuation and methotrexate-monotherapy. However, a higher proportion of patients treated with initial adalimumab plus methotrexate achieved the low disease activity target compared with those initially treated with methotrexate alone. Outcomes were much the same whether adalimumab was continued or withdrawn in patients who initially responded to adalimumab plus methotrexate. FUNDING AbbVie.