Sifalimumab, a human anti-interferon-α monoclonal antibody, in systemic lupus erythematosus: a phase I randomized, controlled, dose-escalation study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple intravenous (IV) doses of sifalimumab in adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential dose-escalation study, patients were randomized 3:1 to receive IV sifalimumab (0.3, 1.0, 3.0, or 10.0 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks to week 26, then followed up for 24 weeks. Safety assessment included recording of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated, and disease activity was assessed. RESULTS: Of 161 patients, 121 received sifalimumab (26 received 0.3 mg/kg; 25, 1.0 mg/kg; 27, 3.0 mg/kg; and 43, 10 mg/kg) and 40 received placebo. Patients were predominantly female (95.7%). At baseline, patients had moderate-to-severe disease activity (mean SLE Disease Activity Index score 11.0), and most (75.2%) had a high type I interferon (IFN) gene signature. In the sifalimumab group versus the placebo group, the incidence of ≥1 treatment-emergent AE was 92.6% versus 95.0%, ≥1 serious AE was 22.3% versus 27.5%, and ≥1 infection was 67.8% versus 62.5%; discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 9.1% versus 7.5%, and death occurred in 3.3% (n=4) versus 2.5% (n=1). Serum sifalimumab concentrations increased in a linear and dose-proportional manner. Inhibition of the type I IFN gene signature was sustained during treatment in patients with a high baseline signature. No statistically significant differences in clinical activity (SLEDAI and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group score) between sifalimumab and placebo were observed. However, when adjusted for excess burst steroids, SLEDAI change from baseline showed a positive trend over time. A trend toward normal complement C3 or C4 level at week 26 was seen in the sifalimumab groups compared with baseline. CONCLUSION: The observed safety/tolerability and clinical activity profile of sifalimumab support its continued clinical development for SLE.

Oral ibandronate preserves trabecular microarchitecture: micro-computed tomography findings from the oral iBandronate Osteoporosis vertebral fracture trial in North America and Europe study.

Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) is a quantitative 3-dimensional (3D) scanning procedure used to assess trabecular architecture. In the 3-yr oral iBandronate Osteoporosis vertebral fracture trial in North America and Europe (BONE) study, it was found that oral ibandronate administered daily (2.5 mg) or intermittently (20 mg) significantly reduced vertebral fracture risk by 62% (p=0.0001) and 50% (p=0.0006), respectively, vs placebo. Two-dimensional histomorphometric analysis of BONE study biopsies indicated that newly formed bone was of normal quality. In the current analysis, micro-CT was used to assess 3D trabecular microarchitecture. Rod and plate distribution was quantified by differential analysis of the triangulated bone surface. Biopsies were obtained from 110 patients, with 84 evaluable by micro-CT. Median structural model index (SMI; a lower SMI indicates an increased ratio of plates to rods and thus, improved trabecular microarchitecture) was 1.001 with ibandronate vs 1.365 with placebo (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference in medians: -0.626, -0.033), and connectivity density was higher in ibandronate-treated patients (median: 3.904 vs 3.112/mm3, 90% CI for difference in medians: 0.159, 1.517). This indicates that trabecular microarchitecture was better preserved in patients receiving ibandronate than placebo. Taken together with previous results from BONE, these findings indicate that ibandronate treatment preserves bone strength by maintaining good quality trabecular microarchitecture in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Clinical evaluation of medicinal products for acceleration of fracture healing in patients with osteoporosis.

Pre-clinical studies indicate that pharmacologic agents can augment fracture union. If these pharmacologic approaches could be translated into clinical benefit and offered to patients with osteoporosis or patients with other risks for impaired fracture union (e.g. in subjects with large defects or open fractures with high complication rate), they could provide an important adjunct to the treatment of fractures. However, widely accepted guidelines are important to encourage the conduct of studies to evaluate bioactive substances, drugs, and new agents that may promote fracture union and subsequent return to normal function. A consensus process was initiated to provide recommendations for the clinical evaluation of potential therapies to augment fracture repair in patients with meta- and diaphyseal fractures. Based on the characteristics of fracture healing and fixation, the following study objectives of a clinical study may be appropriate: a) acceleration of fracture union, b) acceleration of return to normal function and c) reduction of fracture healing complications. The intended goal(s) should determine subsequent study methodology. While an acceleration of return to normal function or a reduction of fracture healing complications in and of themselves may be sufficient primary study endpoints for a phase 3 pivotal study, acceleration of fracture union alone is not. Radiographic evaluation may either occur at multiple time points during the healing process with the aim of measuring the time taken to reach a defined status (e.g. cortical bridging of three cortices or disappearance of fracture lines), or could be obtained at a single pre-determined timepoint, were patients are expected to reach a common clinical milestone (i.e. pain free full weight-bearing in weight-bearing fracture cases). Validated Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO's) measures will need to support the return to normal function co-primary endpoints. If reduction of complication rate (e.g. non-union) is the primary objective, the anticipated complications must be defined in the study protocol, along with their possible associations with the specified fracture type and fixation device. The study design should be randomized, parallel, double-blind, and placebo-controlled, and all fracture subjects should receive a standardized method of fracture fixation, defined as Standard of Care.

Recommendations for the registration of agents to be used in the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: updated recommendations from the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science.

OBJECTIVES: The Group for the Respect and Excellence in Science (GREES) has reviewed and updated their recommendations for clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy and safety of new chemical entities to be used in the treatment and prevention of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP). METHODS: Consensus discussion of the committee. RESULTS: With the exception of steroid use posttransplantation, there is no need to differentiate between underlying diseases. Prevention and treatment for GIOP are dependent on exposure to glucocorticoids rather than T-scores as in postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). If fracture data are obtained for PMO, it need not be repeated for GIOP, relying instead on bone mineral density (BMD) trials of at least 1 year. GREES recommends several changes in the previous guidance for GIOP. The committee saw no need to repeat preclinical studies if those have been previously done to assure bone quality in PMO. Similarly, phase I and phase II trials, if careful dose selection has been done for PMO, should not be repeated. The "prevention" and "treatment" claims should remain. Since the most recent evidence suggests significant increase in fracture risk for daily doses of prednisone of 5 mg/day or equivalent, clinical trials should concentrate on patients receiving at least this daily dosage. The emergence of bisphosphonates as the reference treatment, together with the rapid bone loss and high fracture incidence in glucocorticoid users, necessitates recommending a noninferiority trial design with lumbar spine BMD as the primary endpoint after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Registration of new chemical entities to be used in the management of GIOP should be granted, based on a 1-year noninferiority trial, using BMD as primary outcome and alendronate or risedronate as comparator. Demonstration of antifracture efficacy should have been previously demonstrated in PMO.

Impaired health status and the effect of pain and fatigue on functioning in clinical trial patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: Our study evaluated the impaired health status of clinical trial patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and explored the relationship between changes in fatigue and pain and their effect on overall health status. METHODS: Pooled treatment and placebo data from a phase Ib clinical trial of adults with moderate/severe SLE were analyzed. Measures included patient-reported Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 Survey, Version 2 (SF-36v2), Fatigue Severity Scale, and numeric rating scales (NRS) for pain and global health assessment and clinician-reported global assessment of disease activity (MDGA). Disease burden was compared to the US general population. Health status of responders and nonresponders on pain or fatigue were compared. RESULTS: The sample included 161 patients with SLE, predominantly female (96%) and white (72%), with average age of 43 ± 11 years. Mean SF-36v2 component summary scores reflected overall problems with physical [physical component summary (PCS); 35.2 ± 9.7] and mental health (mental component summary; 40.9 ± 12.9). Patients with SLE had worse health status on all SF-36v2 subscales than the US general population and comparable age and sex norms (effect size -0.51 to -2.15). Pain and fatigue responders had greater improvements on SF-36v2 scores (bodily pain, physical functioning, social functioning, PCS), patient global health assessment NRS, and MDGA than nonresponders. There was moderate agreement in responder status, based on global assessments by patients and clinicians (68.1%), with some discrepancy between patients who were MDGA responders but patient assessment nonresponders (27.7%). CONCLUSION: Improvements in patient-reported pain or fatigue correlated with improvements in overall health. Patient assessments offer a unique perspective on treatment outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes add value in understanding clinical trial treatment benefits.

Recommendations for an update of 2003 European regulatory requirements for registration of drugs to be used in the treatment of RA.

Since 2003, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) document, 'Points to consider on clinical investigation of medicinal products other than NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis' has provided guidance for the clinical development of both biologic and non-biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). In the last few years, several new products have been developed or are in development for the treatment of RA, which offer significant efficacy with regard to disease control, including prevention of structural damage and disability. Concurrently, novel insights have been gained with respect to the assessment of disease activity, joint damage and disability. New treatment strategies have been established which relate to early therapy, tight control and rapid switching of medication. Accordingly, several new EULAR/ACR recommendations have been or are being developed. Several important additions and changes are needed in the 2003 guidance to incorporate the current scientific knowledge into clinical trial design for the development of future products. Under the auspices of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES), a group of experts in the field of RA and clinical trial design met to provide a consensus recommendation for an update to the 2003 EMA guidance document.

Recommendations for an update of the current (2001) regulatory requirements for registration of drugs to be used in the treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and in men.

Recent advances in the understanding of the epidemiology of osteoporosis suggest that certain parts of the current European guidelines for the registration of drugs in osteoporosis might be no longer substantiated. The object of this review is to provide the European regulatory authorities with an evidence-based working document providing suggestions for the revision of the "Note for guidance for the approval of drugs to be used in postmenopausal osteoporosis" (CPMP/EWP/552/95). Following an extensive review of the literature (1990-2004), the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES) organized a workshop including European regulators, academic scientists and representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. The outcomes of this meeting reflect the personal views of those who attended and should not, in any case, be seen as an official position paper of any regulatory agency. The group identified a certain number of points that deserve discussion. They mainly relate to the nature of the indication being granted to new chemical entities (treatment of osteoporosis in women at high risk of fracture instead of prevention and treatment of osteoporosis), the requirements of showing an anti-fracture efficacy on all or on major nonvertebral fractures (instead of the hip), the duration of pivotal trials (2 years instead of 3) and the possibility of considering bridging studies for new routes of administration, new doses or new regimens of previously approved drugs. The group also recommends that an indication could be granted for the treatment of osteoporosis in males on the basis of a placebo-controlled study, with bone mineral density changes after 1 year as the primary endpoint, for medications approved in the treatment of osteoporosis in women at high risk of fractures.

Recommendations for the use of new methods to assess the efficacy of disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Recent innovations in the pharmaceutical drug discovery environment have generated new chemical entities with the potential to become disease modifying drugs for osteoarthritis (DMOAD's). Regulatory agencies acknowledge that such compounds may be granted a DMOAD indication, providing they demonstrate that they can slow down disease progression; progression would be calibrated by a surrogate for structural change, by measuring joint space narrowing (JSN) on plain X-rays with the caveat that this delayed JSN translate into a clinical benefit for the patient. Recently, new technology has been developed to detect a structural change of the OA joint earlier than conventional X-rays. OBJECTIVE: The Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES) organized a working party to assess whether these new technologies may be used as surrogates to plain x-rays for assessment of DMOADs. METHODS: GREES includes academic scientists, members of regulatory authorities and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry. After an extensive search of the international literature, from 1980 to 2002, two experts meetings were organized to prepare a resource document for regulatory authorities. This document includes recommendations for a possible update of guidelines for the registration of new chemical entities in osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now used to measure parameters of cartilage morphology and integrity in OA patients. While some data are encouraging, correlation between short-term changes in cartilage structure observed with MRI and long-term radiographic or clinical changes are needed. Hence, the GREES suggests that MRI maybe used as an outcome in phase II studies, but that further data is needed before accepting MRI as a primary end-point in phase III clinical trials. Biochemical markers of bone and cartilage remodelling are being tested to predict OA and measure disease progression. Recently published data are promising but validation as surrogate end-points for OA disease progression requires additional study. The GREES suggests that biochemical markers remain limited to 'proof of concept' studies or as secondary end-points in phase II and III clinical trials. However, the GREES emphasizes the importance of acquiring additional information on biochemical markers in order to help better understand the mode of action of drugs to be used in OA. Regulatory agencies consider that evidence of improvement in clinical outcomes is critical for approval of DMOAD. Time to total joint replacement surgery is probably the most relevant clinical end-point for the evaluation of efficacy of a DMOAD. However, at this time, time to surgery can not be used in clinical trials because of bias by non disease-related factors like patient willingness for surgery or economic factors. At this stage, it appears that DMOAD should demonstrate a significant difference compared to placebo. Benefit should be measured by 3 co-primary end-points: JSN, pain and function. Secondary end-points should include the percentage of patients who are 'responder' (or 'failure'). The definition of a 'failure' patient would be someone with progression of JSN>0.5mm over a period of 2-3 years or who has a significant worsening in pain and/or function, based on validated cut-off values. The definition of the clinically relevant cut-off points for pain and function must be based on data evaluating the natural history of the disease (epidemiological cohorts or placebo groups from long-term studies). These cut-offs points should reflect a high propensity, for an individual patient, to later require joint replacement. CONCLUSION: GREES has outlined a set of guidelines for the development of a DMOAD for OA. Although these guidelines are subject to change as new information becomes available, the information above is based on the present knowledge in the field with the addition of expert opinion.