Etrolizumab versus adalimumab or placebo as induction therapy for moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (HIBISCUS): two phase 3 randomised, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted anti-ß7 integrin monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission relative to placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. The HIBISCUS studies aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab to adalimumab and placebo for induction of remission in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. METHODS: HIBISCUS I and HIBISCUS II were identically designed, multicentre, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled and active-controlled studies of etrolizumab, adalimumab, and placebo in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) who were naive to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors. All patients had an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In both studies, patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg once every 4 weeks; subcutaneous adalimumab 160 mg on day 1, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg at weeks 4, 6, and 8; or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants, and baseline disease activity. All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was induction of remission at week 10 (defined as MCS of 2 or lower, with individual subscores of 1 or lower, and rectal bleeding subscore of 0) with etrolizumab compared with placebo. Pooled analyses of both studies comparing etrolizumab and adalimumab were examined for several clinical and endoscopic endpoints. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population, defined as all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02163759 (HIBISCUS I), NCT02171429 (HIBISCUS II). FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2014, and May 25, 2020, each study screened 652 patients (HIBISCUS I) and 613 patients (HIBISCUS II). Each study enrolled and randomly assigned 358 patients (HIBISCUS I etrolizumab n=144, adalimumab n=142, placebo n=72; HIBISCUS II etrolizumab n=143; adalimumab n=143; placebo n=72). In HIBISCUS I, 28 (19·4%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group and five (6·9%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 12·3% (95% CI 1·6 to 20·6; p=0·017) in favour of etrolizumab. In HIBISCUS II, 26 (18·2%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group and eight (11·1%) of 72 patients in the placebo group were in remission at week 10, with an adjusted treatment difference of 7·2% (95% CI -3·8 to 16·1; p=0·17). In the pooled analysis, etrolizumab was not superior to adalimumab for induction of remission, endoscopic improvement, clinical response, histological remission, or endoscopic remission; however, similar numerical results were observed in both groups. In HIBISCUS I, 50 (35%) of 144 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, compared with 61 (43%) of 142 in the adalimumab group and 26 (36%) of 72 in the placebo group. In HIBISCUS II, 63 (44%) of 143 patients in the etrolizumab group reported any adverse event, as did 62 (43%) of 143 in the adalimumab group and 33 (46%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse event in all groups was ulcerative colitis flare. The incidence of serious adverse events in the pooled patient population was similar for etrolizumab (15 [5%] of 287) and placebo (seven [5%] of 144) and lower for adalimumab (six [2%] of 285). Two patients in the etrolizumab group died; neither death was deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Etrolizumab was superior to placebo for induction of remission in HIBISCUS I, but not in HIBISCUS II. Etrolizumab was well tolerated in both studies. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Etrolizumab as induction and maintenance therapy for ulcerative colitis in patients previously treated with tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (HICKORY): a phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Etrolizumab is a gut-targeted, anti-ß7 integrin, monoclonal antibody. In an earlier phase 2 induction study, etrolizumab significantly improved clinical remission compared with placebo in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents. METHODS: HICKORY was a multicentre, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in adult (18-80 years) patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] of 6-12 with an endoscopic subscore of ≥2, a rectal bleeding subscore of ≥1, and a stool frequency subscore of ≥1) previously treated with TNF inhibitors. Patients were recruited from 184 treatment centres across 24 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and the Middle East. Patients needed to have an established diagnosis of ulcerative colitis for at least 3 months, corroborated by both clinical and endoscopic evidence, and evidence of disease extending at least 20 cm from the anal verge. In cohort 1, patients received open-label etrolizumab 105 mg every 4 weeks for a 14-week induction period. In cohort 2, patients were randomly assigned (4:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks for the 14-week induction phase. Patients in either cohort achieving clinical response to etrolizumab induction were eligible for the maintenance phase, in which they were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous etrolizumab 105 mg or placebo every 4 weeks through to week 66. Randomisation was stratified by baseline concomitant treatment with corticosteroids, concomitant treatment with immunosuppressants (induction randomisation only), baseline disease activity, week 14 MCS remission status (maintenance randomisation only), and induction cohort (maintenance randomisation only). All patients and study site personnel were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were remission (Mayo Clinic total score [MCS] ≤2, with individual subscores of ≤1 and a rectal bleeding subscore of 0) at week 14, and remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response (MCS with ≥3-point decrease and ≥30% reduction from baseline, plus ≥1 point decrease in rectal bleeding subscore or absolute rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1) at week 14. Efficacy was analysed using a modified intent-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug during the induction phase. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02100696. FINDINGS: HICKORY was conducted from May 21, 2014, to April 16, 2020, during which time 1081 patients were screened, and 609 deemed eligible for inclusion. 130 patients were included in cohort 1. In cohort 2,479 patients were randomly assigned to the induction phase (etrolizumab n=384, placebo n=95). 232 patients were randomly assigned to the maintenance phase (etrolizumab to etrolizumab n=117, etrolizumab to placebo n=115). At week 14, 71 (18·5%) of 384 patients in the etrolizumab group and six (6·3%) of 95 patients in the placebo group achieved the primary induction endpoint of remission (p=0·0033). No significant difference between etrolizumab and placebo was observed for the primary maintenance endpoint of remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14 (27 [24·1%] of 112 vs 23 [20·2%] of 114; p=0·50). Four patients in the etrolizumab group reported treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation. The proportion of patients reporting at least adverse event was similar between treatment groups for induction (etrolizumab 253 [66%] of 384; placebo 63 [66%] of 95) and maintenance (etrolizumab to etrolizumab 98 [88%] of 112; etrolizumab to placebo 97 [85%] of 114). The most common adverse event in both groups was ulcerative colitis flare. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. During induction, the most common serious adverse event was ulcerative colitis flare (etrolizumab ten [3%] of 384; placebo: two [2%] of 95). During maintenance, the most common serious adverse event in the etrolizumab to etrolizumab group was appendicitis (two [2%] of 112) and the most common serious adverse events in the etrolizumab to placebo group were ulcerative colitis flare (two [2%] of 114) and anaemia (two [2%] of 114). INTERPRETATION: HICKORY demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who had been previously treated with anti-TNF agent were able to achieve remission at week 14 when treated with etrolizumab compared with placebo; however, there was no significant difference between groups in remission at week 66 among patients with a clinical response at week 14. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Etrolizumab for the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Disease: An Overview of the Phase 3 Clinical Program.

INTRODUCTION: Etrolizumab is a next-generation anti-integrin with dual action that targets two pathways of inflammation in the gut. A robust phase 3 clinical program in ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn's disease is ongoing and will evaluate the efficacy and safety of etrolizumab in well-defined patient populations in rigorous trials that include direct head-to-head comparisons against approved anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha agents (anti-TNF). The etrolizumab phase 3 clinical program consists of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs; UC: HIBISCUS I and II, GARDENIA, LAUREL, HICKORY; Crohn's disease: BERGAMOT) and two open-label extension trials (OLEs; UC: COTTONWOOD; Crohn's disease: JUNIPER) evaluating patients with moderately to severely active UC or Crohn's disease. METHODS: In the UC RCTs, patients are randomly assigned according to each protocol to receive etrolizumab, adalimumab, infliximab, or placebo. In BERGAMOT, patients are randomly assigned to receive etrolizumab 105 mg, etrolizumab 210 mg, or placebo. The primary outcomes for the UC RCTs are Mayo Clinic score-based clinical response, remission, and clinical remission; for BERGAMOT, the co-primary outcomes are clinical remission (based on abdominal pain and stool frequency) and endoscopic improvement (based on the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's disease). The OLEs will primarily assess long-term efficacy and safety. Secondary and exploratory endpoints include endoscopy, histology, quality of life, and biomarkers at various timepoints. DISCUSSION: The etrolizumab phase 3 clinical program is the largest and most comprehensive in inflammatory bowel disease, enrolling more than 3000 patients. The program explores both induction and maintenance regimens. HIBISCUS I and II and GARDENIA are among the first head-to-head trials in UC against an anti-TNF and are the first registrational trials making that comparison. This program will also help address unanswered clinical questions on evaluation of treatment effects and treatment selection across a range of patients with varying treatment histories using an extensive repository of patient samples and data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: HIBISCUS I (NCT02163759), HIBISCUS II (NCT02171429), GARDENIA (NCT02136069), LAUREL (NCT02165215), HICKORY (NCT02100696), COTTONWOOD (NCT02118584), BERGAMOT (NCT02394028), JUNIPER (NCT02403323).

Risk of Malignancies in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Rituximab: Analyses of Global Postmarketing Safety Data and Long-Term Clinical Trial Data.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at an increased risk of developing malignancies, but it is unclear whether this increased risk is the result of disease pathobiology or immunosuppressant treatments for RA. This analysis evaluated the potential risk of malignancy in patients with RA treated with rituximab (MabThera®/Rituxan®) a CD20+ B-cell depleting agent manufactured by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. METHODS: Malignancy rates were obtained from the rituximab global company safety database for adverse event reporting and from the rituximab global clinical trial program for RA consisting of eight randomized clinical trials, two long-term open-label extensions, and one open-label prospective study. Global company safety database searches were performed using the standard Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) queries "Malignant tumors wide" and "Skin malignant tumors wide" up to April 30, 2017. Age- and sex-specific comparator values from the general population were obtained from the US National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. RESULTS: For the 409,706 patients with RA in the rituximab global company safety database since first market approval in 2006, 1739 cumulative malignant events were reported, with an overall malignancy reporting rate of approximately 4.2 events per 1000 patients. No evidence of increased risk of malignancy, of any organ-specific type, was found following rituximab treatment. The rate of malignancies from rituximab-treated patients in RA clinical trials was 7.4 per 1000 patient-years. This is within the expected range, with no evidence for increased risk over time or with additional rituximab courses. CONCLUSIONS: Analyses of the global postmarketing safety database and long-term clinical trial data showed no evidence of an increased risk of malignancy of any type following rituximab treatment in patients with RA. FUNDING: F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

Correction to: Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in rituximab-treated rheumatic diseases: a rare event.

The article "Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in rituximab-treated rheumatic diseases: a rare event," written by Joseph R. Berger, Vineeta Malik, Stuart Lacey, Paul Brunetta, and Patricia B. Lehane3, was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink).

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in rituximab-treated rheumatic diseases: a rare event.

This report assesses the observed risk of PML in patients treated with the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody rituximab in the regulatory authority-approved autoimmune indications rheumatoid arthritis (RA), granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA), and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA). This was a cumulative analysis of confirmed PML cases in patients receiving rituximab for RA or GPA/MPA from both spontaneous reports and clinical trial sources, as captured in the manufacturer global company safety and clinical databases. Overall reporting rates were calculated and patient case details were summarized. As of 17 November 2015, there were nine confirmed PML cases among patients who had received rituximab for RA and two for GPA. Corresponding estimated reporting rates were 2.56 per 100,000 patients with RA (estimated exposure ≈ 351,396 patients) and < 1 per 10,000 patients with GPA/MPA (estimated exposure 40,000-50,000 patients). In all cases, patients had ≥ 1 potential risk factor for PML independent of rituximab treatment. In the RA population, the estimated reporting rate of PML generally remained stable and low since 2009 despite increasing rituximab exposure. There was no pattern of latency from time of rituximab initiation to PML development and no association of PML with the number of rituximab courses. Global post-marketing safety and clinical trial data demonstrated that the occurrence of PML is very rare among rituximab-treated patients with RA or GPA/MPA and has remained stable over time.

Low immunogenicity of tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Subcutaneous (SC) and intravenous formulations of tocilizumab (TCZ) are available for the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), based on the efficacy and safety observed in clinical trials. Anti-TCZ antibody development and its impact on safety and efficacy were evaluated in adult patients with RA treated with intravenous TCZ (TCZ-IV) or TCZ-SC as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs). METHODS: Data from 5 TCZ-SC and 8 TCZ-IV phase III clinical trials and 1 TCZ-IV clinical pharmacology safety study (>50 000 samples) were pooled to assess the immunogenicity profile of TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV (8974 total patients). The analysis included antidrug antibody (ADA) measurement following TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs, after dosing interruptions or in TCZ-washout samples, and the correlation of ADAs with clinical response, adverse events or pharmacokinetics (PK). RESULTS: The proportion of patients who developed ADAs following TCZ-SC or TCZ-IV treatment was 1.5% and 1.2%, respectively. ADA development was also comparable between patients who received TCZ monotherapy and those who received concomitant csDMARDs (0.7-2.0%). ADA development did not correlate with PK or safety events, including anaphylaxis, hypersensitivity or injection-site reactions, and no patients who developed ADAs had loss of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: The immunogenicity risk of TCZ-SC and TCZ-IV treatment was low, either as monotherapy or in combination with csDMARDs. Anti-TCZ antibodies developed among the small proportion of patients had no evident impact on PK, efficacy or safety.

Longterm Safety of Rituximab: Final Report of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Global Clinical Trial Program over 11 Years.

OBJECTIVE: Final evaluation of the longterm safety of rituximab (RTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) up to 11 years. METHODS: Pooled observed case analysis of data from patients with moderate to severe, active RA in a global clinical trial program. RESULTS: As of September 2012, 3595 patients received a mean of 4 courses (range 1-20) of RTX over 11 years [14,816 patient-years (PY)]. Of these, 1246 patients had > 5 years of followup (8970 PY). A pooled placebo population (n = 818) was included in the analysis. The overall serious infection event (SIE) rate was 3.76/100 PY (2.71/100 PY in patients observed for > 5 yrs) and comparable with rates reported previously at 9.5 years (3.94/100 PY and 3.26/100 PY, respectively). SIE rates continued to be similar before and during/after development of low immunoglobulin levels, and serious opportunistic infections remained rare. Rates of cardiac events remained consistent with previous analysis and with rates in the general RA population. No increased risk of malignancy over time was observed. CONCLUSION: This final report demonstrates that RTX remains well tolerated over time and multiple courses. No new safety risks were identified and there was no increase in the rate of any types of adverse events with prolonged exposure to RTX during 11 years of observation.

The diagnosis of appendicitis in children: outcomes of a strategy based on pediatric surgical evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of a protocol for diagnosis of appendicitis in children based on clinical evaluation by a pediatric surgeon with selective use of diagnostic imaging studies. We performed this study because 1) current reports in the medical, pediatric, emergency medical, and surgical literature advocate imaging, particularly computed tomography (CT), as the gold standard for diagnosis of appendicitis, and 2) the value of pediatric surgical evaluation early in the management of the child with possible appendicitis has rarely been emphasized. METHODS, DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective review of 356 children (mean age: 9.6 years; range: 1-18 years) referred to a regional pediatric surgical center for possible appendicitis from 1999 through 2001. INTERVENTIONS: Initial pediatric surgical evaluation consisted of history, physical examination, white blood cell count, differential count, and urinalysis. Children diagnosed with appendicitis underwent appendectomy without additional studies; those with equivocal findings received intravenous fluids, rest, and reevaluation after 4 to 6 hours. Imaging was used selectively by the pediatric surgeon. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the protocol based on final diagnoses; rate of appendiceal perforation; and rate of negative appendectomy. RESULTS: Of 356 children evaluated for appendicitis, 220 (62%) had an appendectomy. Two-hundred nine (95%) had histologically proven appendicitis, and 11 (5%) had a normal appendix. Of the 209 children with appendicitis, 139 (66%) had acute appendicitis, 34 (16%) had advanced appendicitis without perforation, and 36 (17%) had advanced appendicitis with perforation. Appendectomy was performed after initial evaluation in 195 (89%) of the 220 children and after a period of supportive care and observation in 25 (11%) of 220. One hundred thirty-six children (38%) did not have an appendectomy and were discharged with other diagnoses. The sensitivity of this protocol was 99%, specificity was 92%, positive predictive value was 95%, and negative predictive value was 99%. The accuracy was 97% compared with an accuracy of 82% for ultrasound alone and 90% for CT scan alone. CONCLUSIONS: These data show that a protocol based on clinical evaluation by a pediatric surgeon with selective use of imaging was highly accurate for the diagnosis of appendicitis in children. Low rates of negative appendectomy (5%) and perforation (17%) were achieved without the potential costs and radiation exposure of excess imaging.