Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus sarilumab or placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to targeted therapies: a phase III randomised trial (contRAst 3).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or Janus kinase inhibitors. METHODS: ContRAst 3 was a 24-week, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Patients received subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly), subcutaneous sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo for 12 weeks, in addition to csDMARDs. Patients receiving placebo were switched to active interventions at week 12 and treatment continued to week 24. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology ≥20% response (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: Overall, 549 patients received treatment. At week 12, there was no significant difference in the proportion of ACR20 responders with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg versus placebo (45% (p=0.2868) and 51% (p=0.0596) vs 38%, respectively). There were no significant differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pain Visual Analogue Scale or Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores with otilimab versus placebo at week 12. Sarilumab demonstrated superiority to otilimab in ACR20 response and secondary end points. The incidence of adverse or serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Otilimab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile but failed to achieve the primary end point of ACR20 and improve secondary end points versus placebo or demonstrate non-inferiority to sarilumab in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04134728.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03980483, NCT03970837.

A randomised trial of anti-GM-CSF otilimab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia (OSCAR).

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and dysregulated myeloid cell responses are implicated in the pathophysiology and severity of COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, sequential, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, adults aged 18-79 years (Part 1) or ≥70 years (Part 2) with severe COVID-19, respiratory failure and systemic inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein/ferritin) received a single intravenous infusion of otilimab 90 mg (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody) plus standard care (NCT04376684). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. RESULTS: In Part 1 (n=806 randomised 1:1 otilimab:placebo), 71% of otilimab-treated patients were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% who received placebo; the model-adjusted difference of 5.3% was not statistically significant (95% CI -0.8-11.4%, p=0.09). A nominally significant model-adjusted difference of 19.1% (95% CI 5.2-33.1%, p=0.009) was observed in the predefined 70-79 years subgroup, but this was not confirmed in Part 2 (n=350 randomised) where the model-adjusted difference was 0.9% (95% CI -9.3-11.2%, p=0.86). Compared with placebo, otilimab resulted in lower serum concentrations of key inflammatory markers, including the putative pharmacodynamic biomarker CC chemokine ligand 17, indicative of GM-CSF pathway blockade. Adverse events were comparable between groups and consistent with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. However, despite the lack of clinical benefit, a reduction in inflammatory markers was observed with otilimab, in addition to an acceptable safety profile.

Engaging Patients via Online Healthcare Fora: Three Pharmacovigilance Use Cases.

Increasingly, patient-generated safety insights are shared online, via general social media platforms or dedicated healthcare fora which give patients the opportunity to discuss their disease and treatment options. We evaluated three areas of potential interest for the use of social media in pharmacovigilance. To evaluate how social media may complement existing safety signal detection capabilities, we identified two use cases (drug/adverse event [AE] pairs) and then evaluated the frequency of AE discussions across a range of social media channels. Changes in frequency over time were noted in social media, then compared to frequency changes in Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) data over the same time period using a traditional disproportionality method. Although both data sources showed increasing frequencies of AE discussions over time, the increase in frequency was greater in the FAERS data as compared to social media. To demonstrate the robustness of medical/AE insights of linked posts we manually reviewed 2,817 threads containing 21,313 individual posts from 3,601 unique authors. Posts from the same authors were linked together. We used a quality scoring algorithm to determine the groups of linked posts with the highest quality and manually evaluated the top 16 groups of posts. Most linked posts (12/16; 75%) contained all seven relevant medical insights assessed compared to only one (of 1,672) individual post. To test the capability of actively engage patients via social media to obtain follow-up AE information we identified and sent consents for follow-up to 39 individuals (through a third party). We sent target follow-up questions (identified by pharmacovigilance experts as critical for causality assessment) to those who consented. The number of people consenting to follow-up was low (20%), but receipt of follow-up was high (75%). We observed completeness of responses (37 out of 37 questions answered) and short average time required to receive the follow-up (1.8 days). Our findings indicate a limited use of social media data for safety signal detection. However, our research highlights two areas of potential value to pharmacovigilance: obtaining more complete medical/AE insights via longitudinal post linking and actively obtaining rapid follow-up information on AEs.

Safety of alitretinoin for severe refractory chronic hand eczema: Clinical studies and postmarketing surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Alitretinoin is approved for the treatment of adults with severe chronic hand eczema (CHE) refractory to potent topical steroids. In the 6 years since launch, approximately 250 000 patients have been treated with alitretinoin. OBJECTIVE: To compare the postmarketing safety surveillance experience of alitretinoin with data from clinical trials and key safety issues with other retinoids. METHODS: An integrated safety analysis of the pivotal studies of alitretinoin and postmarketing adverse event (AE) reports received since approval for alitretinoin were analyzed. RESULTS: In the pivotal trials, headache, erythema, nausea, increased blood triglycerides and increased blood creatinine phosphokinase were the most frequently reported AEs. Headache, hyperlipidemia and nausea were also frequently reported postmarketing AEs, but depression was relatively more frequently reported than in the pivotal trials. Inflammatory bowel disease and benign intracranial hypertension were rare, and very few cases have been reported in postmarketing surveillance. There have been no reports of teratogenicity in humans consequent to fetal exposure. CONCLUSIONS: Safety data collected in pivotal trials and postmarketing surveillance suggest that alitretinoin is well tolerated by patients with CHE with a relatively low incidence of serious reactions. The adverse reaction profile is congruent with reported effects of other marketed oral retinoids.