Biological and clinical insights from a randomized phase 2 study of an anti-oncostatin M monoclonal antibody in systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: The cytokine oncostatin M (OSM) is implicated in the pathology of SSc. Inhibiting OSM signalling using GSK2330811 (an anti-OSM monoclonal antibody) in patients with SSc has the potential to slow or stop the disease process. METHODS: This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled participants ≥18 years of age with active dcSSc. Participants were randomized 3:1 (GSK2330811:placebo) in one of two sequential cohorts to receive GSK2330811 (cohort 1: 100 mg; cohort 2: 300 mg) or placebo s.c. every other week for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was safety; blood and skin biopsy samples were collected to explore mechanistic effects on inflammation and fibrosis. Clinical efficacy was an exploratory endpoint. RESULTS: Thirty-five participants were randomized to placebo (n = 8), GSK2330811 100 mg (n = 3) or GSK2330811 300 mg (n = 24). Proof of mechanism, measured by coordinate effects on biomarkers of inflammation or fibrosis, was not demonstrated following GSK2330811 treatment. There were no meaningful differences between GSK2330811 and placebo for any efficacy endpoints. The safety and tolerability of GSK2330811 were not favourable in the 300 mg group, with on-target, dose-dependent adverse events related to decreases in haemoglobin and platelet count that were not observed in the 100 mg or placebo groups. CONCLUSION: Despite a robust and novel experimental medicine approach and evidence of target engagement, anticipated SSc-related biologic effects of GSK2330811 were not different from placebo and safety was unfavourable, suggesting OSM inhibition may not be a useful therapeutic strategy in SSc. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03041025; EudraCT, 2016-003417-95.

Conditional assurance: the answer to the questions that should be asked within drug development.

In this paper, we extend the use of assurance for a single study to explore how meeting a study's pre-defined success criteria could update our beliefs about the true treatment effect and impact the assurance of subsequent studies. This concept of conditional assurance, the assurance of a subsequent study conditional on success in an initial study, can be used assess the de-risking potential of the study requiring immediate investment, to ensure it provides value within the overall development plan. If the planned study does not discharge sufficient later phase risk, alternative designs and/or success criteria should be explored. By transparently laying out the different design options and the risks associated, this allows for decision makers to make quantitative investment choices based on their risk tolerance levels and potential return on investment. This paper lays out the derivation of conditional assurance, discusses how changing the design of a planned study will impact the conditional assurance of a future study, as well as presenting a simple illustrative example of how this methodology could be used to transparently compare development plans to aid decision making within an organisation.

Safety and efficacy of ozanezumab in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neurite outgrowth inhibitor A (Nogo-A) is thought to have a role in the pathophysiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). A monoclonal antibody against Nogo-A showed a positive effect in the SOD1G93A mouse model of ALS, and a humanised form of this antibody (ozanezumab) was well tolerated in a first-in-human trial. Therefore, we aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ozanezumab in patients with ALS. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was done in 34 centres in 11 countries. Patients aged 18-80 years with a diagnosis of familial or sporadic ALS were randomly assigned (1:1), centrally according to a computer-generated allocation schedule, to receive ozanezumab (15 mg/kg) or placebo as intravenous infusions over 1 h every 2 weeks for 46 weeks, followed by assessments at week 48 and week 60. Patients and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was a joint-rank analysis of function (ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised) and overall survival, analysed at 48 weeks in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01753076, and with GSK-ClinicalStudyRegister.com, NOG112264, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 20, 2012, and Nov 1, 2013, we recruited 307 patients, of whom 303 were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=151) or ozanezumab (n=152). The adjusted mean of the joint-rank score was -14·9 (SE 13·5) for the ozanezumab group and 15·0 (13·6) for the placebo group, with a least squares mean difference of -30·0 (95% CI -67·9 to 7·9; p=0·12). Overall, reported adverse events, serious adverse events, and adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation of study drug or withdrawal from study were similar between the treatment groups, except for dyspepsia (ten [7%] in the ozanezumab group vs four [3%] in the placebo group), depression (11 [7%] vs five [3%]), and diarrhoea (25 [16%] vs 12 [8%]). Respiratory failure was the most common serious adverse event (12 [8%] vs seven [5%]). At week 60, the number of deaths was higher in the ozanezumab group (20 [13%]) than in the placebo group (16 [11%]), mainly as a result of respiratory failure (ten [7%] vs five [3%]). Two deaths were considered related to the study drug (bladder transitional cell carcinoma in the ozanezumab group and cerebrovascular accident in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Ozanezumab did not show efficacy compared with placebo in patients with ALS. Therefore, Nogo-A does not seem to be an effective therapeutic target in ALS. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.