William Shergy

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.

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.

Effects of denosumab on bone mineral density and bone turnover in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving concurrent glucocorticoids or bisphosphonates

Objectives To report results of subgroup analyses of bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study of denosumab, an investigational RANKL inhibitor, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) concurrently receiving treatment with bisphosphonates or glucocorticoids. Methods Patients received subcutaneous placebo (n=75), denosumab 60 mg (n=71) or denosumab 180 mg (n=72) at baseline and 6 months. Assessments included dual x-ray absorptiometry scans of the lumbar spine and hip, and determination of levels of serum type I C-telopeptide (sCTx-I) and serum procollagen 1N-terminal peptide (P1NP). Results Denosumab treatment increased mean lumbar spine and hip BMD and reduced sCTx-I and P1NP compared with placebo through 12 months, regardless of baseline BMD or marker levels or concomitant bisphosphonate or glucocorticoid use. Conclusions This study extends evidence that denosumab increases BMD and reduces bone turnover in patients with RA and may provide a new therapeutic option for reducing systemic bone loss in patients with RA.

Abetimus sodium for renal flare in systemic lupus erythematosus: Results of a randomized, controlled phase III trial†

OBJECTIVE To investigate whether treatment with abetimus delays renal flare in patients with lupus nephritis. Secondary objectives included evaluation of the effect of abetimus on C3 levels, anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody levels, use of high-dose corticosteroids and/or cyclophosphamide, and major systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) flare. METHODS We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled study of treatment with abetimus at 100 mg/week for up to 22 months in SLE patients. Three hundred seventeen patients with a history of renal flare and anti-dsDNA levels >15 IU/ml were randomized to a treatment group (158 abetimus, 159 placebo); 298 (94%) were enrolled in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (145 abetimus, 153 placebo), based on the presence of high-affinity antibodies for the oligonucleotide epitope of abetimus at baseline screening. RESULTS Abetimus did not significantly prolong time to renal flare, time to initiation of high-dose corticosteroid and/or cyclophosphamide treatment, or time to major SLE flare. However, there were 25% fewer renal flares in the abetimus group compared with the placebo group (17 of 145 abetimus-treated patients [12%] versus 24 of 153 placebo-treated patients [16%]). Abetimus treatment decreased anti-dsDNA antibody levels (P < 0.0001), and reductions in anti-dsDNA levels were associated with increases in C3 levels (P < 0.0001). More patients in the abetimus group experienced > or =50% reductions in proteinuria at 1 year, compared with the placebo group (nominal P = 0.047). Trends toward reduced rates of renal flare and major SLE flare were noted in patients treated with abetimus who had impaired renal function at baseline. Treatment with abetimus for up to 22 months was well tolerated. CONCLUSION Abetimus at 100 mg/week significantly reduced anti-dsDNA antibody levels but did not significantly prolong time to renal flare when compared with placebo. Multiple positive trends in renal end points were observed in the abetimus treatment group.

Sustained disease remission and inhibition of radiographic progression in methotrexate-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognostic factors treated with abatacept: 2-year outcomes

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of abatacept plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone in early erosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods The AGREE was a 2-year phase IIIb multinational study in early (≤2 years) RA. During the double-blind period (year 1), patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive abatacept+methotrexate or methotrexate alone; all patients received open-label abatacept+methotrexate during year 2. Clinical outcomes assessed included 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) defined remission, low disease activity score (LDAS), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) responses and physical function. Radiographic outcomes were assessed using the Genant-modified Sharp total score (TS). Safety was monitored throughout. Results Of the 459 patients completing year 1, 433 patients (94.3%) completed year 2. DAS28-defined remission, LDAS, ACR and physical function were sustained through year 2 in the original abatacept+methotrexate group, with 55.2% in remission at 2 years. Upon introduction of abatacept in the methotrexate-alone group, additional patients achieved DAS28-defined remission (44.5% vs 26.9%), LDAS (60.4% vs 43.2%) and improved ACR 70 (49.8% vs 31.7%) for year 2 versus year 1. Less radiographic progression was observed at 2 years in the original abatacept+methotrexate group than the methotrexate-alone group (change in TS 0.84 vs 1.75, p<0.001). No new safety issues were seen. Similar rates of serious adverse events, serious infections and autoimmune events were observed in years 1 and 2. Conclusions The AGREE trial was the first to examine the impact of T-cell co-stimulation modulation with abatacept in patients with early erosive RA. Early treatment with abatacept+methotrexate resulted in greater sustainable clinical, functional and radiographic benefits than methotrexate alone, with acceptable safety and tolerability. Trial Registration: NCT00122382

Evaluation of the safety of rituximab in combination with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor and methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: Results from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE To assess the safety of rituximab in combination with a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor and methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS Adult patients with active RA (≥ 5 swollen and ≥ 5 tender joints) receiving a stable dose of MTX (10-25 mg/week) and stable dose of TNF inhibitor (etanercept or adalimumab) for ≥ 12 weeks were randomized 2:1 to receive one course of rituximab or placebo, given intravenously at a dose of 2 × 500 mg. The primary end point was the proportion of patients developing ≥ 1 serious infection through week 24. RESULTS Fifty-one patients were treated with either rituximab or placebo in combination with background MTX and a TNF inhibitor. Baseline characteristics were generally balanced between groups, except for corticosteroid usage (36% in the rituximab arm versus 17% in the placebo arm). A serious infection (pneumonia) was observed in 1 patient (3%) in the rituximab group after 14.4 patient-years of exposure (6.95 events per 100 patient-years, 95% confidence interval 0.98-49.35), compared with none in the placebo group at week 24. Infections were reported in 18 patients (55%) and 11 patients (61%) in the rituximab and placebo groups, respectively. Grade 3 infections were reported in 3 patients (9%) receiving rituximab and in none of the patients receiving placebo. No grade 4 infections were observed, nor were there any opportunistic, fungal, or tuberculosis infections. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 2 rituximab-treated patients (pneumonia and coronary artery occlusion), whereas there were no SAEs reported in placebo-treated patients. At week 24, the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) improvement response was 30% in the rituximab group compared with 17% in the placebo group, and ACR50 responses were achieved by 12% and 6% of patients, respectively. CONCLUSION The preliminary safety profile of rituximab in combination with a TNF inhibitor and MTX was consistent with the safety profile of rituximab in combination with MTX in other RA trials without a TNF inhibitor, with no new safety signals observed. SAEs were numerically more frequent in the rituximab group, and there was no clear evidence of an efficacy advantage in patients receiving rituximab in combination with a TNF inhibitor and MTX.

Efficacy and safety of the biosimilar ABP 501 compared with adalimumab in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, phase III equivalence study

Objectives ABP 501 is a Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilar to adalimumab; structural, functional and pharmacokinetic evaluations have shown that the two are highly similar. We report results from a phase III study comparing efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between ABP 501 and adalimumab. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, active comparator-controlled, 26-week equivalence study, patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate were randomised (1:1) to ABP 501 or adalimumab (40 mg) every 2 weeks. Primary endpoint was risk ratio (RR) of ACR20 between groups at week 24. Primary hypothesis that the treatments were equivalent would be confirmed if the 90% CI for RR of ACR20 at week 24 fell between 0.738 and 1.355, demonstrating that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab. Secondary endpoints included Disease Activity Score 28-joint count-C reactive protein (DAS28-CRP). Safety was assessed via adverse events (AEs) and laboratory evaluations. Antidrug antibodies were assessed to determine immunogenicity. Results A total of 526 patients were randomised (n=264, ABP 501; n=262 adalimumab) and 494 completed the study. ACR20 response at week 24 was 74.6% (ABP 501) and 72.4% (adalimumab). At week 24, the RR of ACR20 (90% CI) between groups was 1.039 (0.954, 1.133), confirming the primary hypothesis. Changes from baseline in DAS28-CRP, ACR50 and ACR70 were similar. There were no clinically meaningful differences in AEs and laboratory abnormalities. A total of 38.3% (ABP 501) and 38.2% (adalimumab) of patients tested positive for binding antidrug antibodies. Conclusions Results from this study demonstrate that ABP 501 is similar to adalimumab in clinical efficacy, safety and immunogenicity in patients with moderate to severe RA. Trial registration number NCT01970475; Results.

Maintenance of remission following 2 years of standard treatment then dose reduction with abatacept in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and poor prognosis

Objectives To evaluate maintenance of response while reducing intravenous abatacept dose from ∼10 mg/kg to ∼5 mg/kg in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who achieved disease activity score (DAS)28 (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, ESR) <2.6. Methods This 1-year, multinational, randomised, double-blind substudy evaluated the efficacy and safety of ∼10 mg/kg and ∼5 mg/kg abatacept in patients with early RA with poor prognosis who had reached DAS28 (ESR) <2.6 at year 2 of the AGREE study. The primary outcome was time to disease relapse (defined as additional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, ≥2 courses high-dose steroids, return to open-label abatacept ∼10 mg/kg, or DAS28 (C reactive protein) ≥3.2 at two consecutive visits). Results 108 patients were randomised (∼10 mg/kg, n=58; ∼5 mg/kg, n=50). Three and five patients, respectively, discontinued, and four per group returned to open-label abatacept. Relapse over time and the proportion of patients relapsing were similar in both groups (31% (∼10 mg/kg) vs 34% (∼5 mg/kg); HR: 0.87 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.69)). Mean steady-state trough serum concentration for the ∼10 mg/kg group was 20.3–24.1 µg/mL, compared with 8.8–12.0 µg/mL for the ∼5 mg/kg group. Conclusions This exploratory study suggests that abatacept dose reduction may be an option in patients with poor prognosis early RA who achieve DAS28 (ESR) <2.6 after ≥1 year on abatacept (∼10 mg/kg). Trial registration number NCT00989235.

Efficacy and safety of guselkumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND 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. METHODS 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. FINDINGS 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]; p<0·0001). 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. INTERPRETATION 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. FUNDING Janssen Research & Development.