Response to netakimab in radiographic axial spondyloarthritis patients with different baseline C-reactive protein, sacroiliitis evaluated by MRI and peripheral joint involvement status: a post-hoc analysis of the ASTERA study.

OBJECTIVES: Netakimab is a humanised camelid-derived monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-17A. Here, we report the results of post-hoc analysis of the ASTERA phase 3 study (NCT03447704, February 27, 2018) in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (r-axSpA) grouped by baseline C-reactive protein (CRP), baseline sacroiliac joint (SIJ) inflammation through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or presence of peripheral arthritis (PA). METHODS: In this double-blinded, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 ASTERA study, 228 adult patients with active r-axSpA received 120 mg of subcutaneous netakimab or placebo at weeks 0, 1, 2, and thereafter every other week. For the subanalysis, 16-week data of 114 netakimab-treated patients with the available baseline CRP and SIJ MRI were grouped by normal (<5 mg/L) or abnormal (≥5 mg/L) CRP, by the grade of sacroiliitis (SI) based on the SPARCC MRI score <2 (MRI-SI-) or ≥2 (MRI-SI+), or by the presence of PA. ASAS-recommended activity, spinal mobility, and function endpoints for r-axSpA were analysed. RESULTS: At week 16, an improvement in all the outcomes was similar for MRI-SI- and MRI-SI+ patients, except for a change in ASspi-MRI-a which was significantly greater in MRI-SI+. Netakimab was effective regardless of baseline CRP and PA. For patients with CRP ≥5 mg/L, a more pronounced decline in r-axSpA activity was observed with a trend towards the most prominent improvement in ASDAS-CRP and BASDAI for patients with CRP >20 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous netakimab is effective in patients with r-axSpA irrespective of baseline CRP and inflammation on SIJ MRI. The benefit in patients with high CRP (>20 mg/L) was more pronounced.

The efficacy and safety of levilimab in severely ill COVID-19 patients not requiring mechanical ventilation: results of a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase III CORONA clinical study.

OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: The aim of this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III CORONA clinical trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IL-6 receptor inhibitor levilimab (LVL) in subjects with severe COVID-19. SUBJECTS: The study included 217 patients. The eligible were men and non-pregnant women aged 18 years or older, hospitalized for severe COVID-19 pneumonia. TREATMENT: 206 subjects were randomized (1:1) to receive single subcutaneous administration of LVL 324 mg or placebo, both in combination with standard of care (SOC). 204 patients received allocated therapy. After the LVL/placebo administration in case of deterioration of symptoms, the investigator could perform a single open-label LVL 324 mg administration as the rescue therapy. METHODS: The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with sustained clinical improvement on the 7-category ordinal scale on Day 14. All efficacy data obtained after rescue therapy administration were considered missing. For primary efficacy analysis, all subjects with missing data were considered non-responders. RESULTS: 63.1% and 42.7% of patients in the LVL and in the placebo groups, respectively, achieved sustained clinical improvement on Day 14 (P = .0017). The frequency of adverse drug reactions was comparable between the groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with radiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, requiring or not oxygen therapy (but not ventilation) with no signs of other active infection administration of LVL + SOC results in an increase of sustained clinical improvement rate. TRAIL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at the US National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04397562).

Primary efficacy of netakimab, a novel interleukin-17 inhibitor, in the treatment of active ankylosing spondylitis in adults.

OBJECTIVES: Netakimab (NTK) is a humanised monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin-17A, previously investigated in a phase 1 trial in healthy volunteers. Here, we report the results of a phase 2 trial, conducted to assess safety and pharmacokinetics (PK), to establish a therapeutic dose of NTK in a target population of patients with active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: 89 patients with active AS, despite non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) drug treatment, were randomised to receive 40, 80 or 120 mg of subcutaneous NTK or placebo at weeks 0, 1, 2 and q2wk thereafter until week 12. The primary endpoint was to achieve a proportion of patients with ≥20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis. RESULTS: Rates of ASAS20 response at week 16 for NTK with 95%CI for difference in ASAS20 rates NTK vs. placebo were 72.73% [1.69%;58.05%], 81.82% [12.36%;65.56%], 90.91% [23.71%;72.39%] at doses of 40, 80 and 120 mg. The response rate in the placebo arm was 42.86%. The pre-specified margin of clinically non-meaningful difference was 10%. Superiority to placebo was confirmed for doses 80 and 120 mg. The most frequent adverse events (AEs) were lymphocytosis, neutropenia, and asymptomatic bacteriuria. No dose-dependent toxicity or serious adverse events (SAEs) were observed. The most effective dose with the fastest response onset and favourable safety profile was 120 mg. CONCLUSIONS: The data obtained demonstrate the efficacy and favourable safety profile of NTK in active AS. Clinical development of NTK will be continued in a phase 3 trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of 1-year treatment with NTK 120 mg in patients with AS.

A phase III study of BCD-055 compared with innovator infliximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: 54-week results from the LIRA study.

BCD-055 is a biosimilar of innovator infliximab (IFX). Here we present the 54-week results from phase 3 clinical study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of this study was to demonstrate the equivalent efficacy and safety of BCD-055 and IFX in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. 426 adults with active RA were enrolled. Patients were randomized into 2 study arms in 2:1 ratio to receive BCD-055 or IFX innovator in dose of 3 mg/kg at week 0, 2, 6 and then every 8 weeks up to week 54. Primary efficacy endpoint was the rate of American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 14. The equivalence margin was set as 15%. Immunogenicity and safety were also assessed. Rate of ACR20 at week 14 in PP (Per-Protocol) population was 71.2% in BCD-055 group and 67.9% in IFX group. Difference in ACR20 rates between groups was 3.2% with 95% CI [- 7.0%; 13.5%] (р = 0.587). Throughout 54-week study period, both groups were characterized by similar rates of ACR20/50/70 response at all timepoints without significant differences (p > 0.05). The rates of adverse events (AE) were similar in groups (74.64% in BCD-055 arm vs 66.67% in IFX arm, p = 0.111). Antibodies to infliximab were detected in 28.46% patients for BCD-055 arm and 26.56% for IFX arm (p = 0.786). BCD-055 and IFX were comparable in efficacy (including radiographic progression), safety and immunogenicity throughout the 54-week study.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID, number NCT02762838.

Efficacy and safety of secukinumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a phase II, dose-finding, double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of secukinumab, a fully human monoclonal anti-interleukin-17A antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients (n=237) with inadequate response to methotrexate were randomly assigned to receive monthly subcutaneous injections of secukinumab 25 mg, 75 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at week 16. RESULTS: Demographics and baseline characteristics were comparable across all treatment groups. The primary efficacy endpoint was not achieved: the proportion of ACR20 responders at week 16 with secukinumab 25-300 mg was 36.0-53.7% versus placebo (34%). Disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28)-C-reactive protein (CRP) was a secondary endpoint and clinically relevant decreases with secukinumab 75-300 mg were reported versus placebo. Serum high sensitivity CRP levels at week 16 were significantly reduced with secukinumab 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg doses versus placebo. The safety profile of secukinumab was consistent with that seen with other biological agents. Most adverse events (AE) were mild to moderate in severity. Infections were slightly more frequent with secukinumab than placebo. Six serious AE were reported: secukinumab 75 mg (one), secukinumab 300 mg (four) and placebo (one). CONCLUSIONS: ACR20 response rates differed between secukinumab 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg doses and placebo; however, the primary efficacy endpoint was not achieved. Greater decreases in DAS28 were observed with secukinumab 75 mg, 150 mg and 300 mg than placebo. There were no unexpected safety signals and no specific organ-related toxicities. Further trials with secukinumab in the treatment of RA are warranted.

Upadacitinib versus placebo or adalimumab with background methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: a subgroup analysis of a phase III randomized controlled trial in Central and Eastern European patients.

BACKGROUND: In the randomized, phase III, global SELECT-COMPARE study, upadacitinib 15 mg demonstrated efficacy at week 12 versus placebo and adalimumab with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to MTX, which was maintained over 48 weeks. This post hoc analysis of SELECT-COMPARE reports the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in Central and Eastern European (CEE) patients. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:2:1 to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, placebo, or adalimumab 40 mg every other week, and continued MTX. Efficacy and safety were assessed through 48 weeks. Primary endpoints were the achievement of ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein <2.6 responses at week 12 for upadacitinib versus placebo. No statistical comparisons were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 596 patients from 12 CEE countries were randomized. At week 12, a numerically greater proportion of patients receiving upadacitinib versus placebo or adalimumab achieved ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (72% versus 33% and 59%), Disease Activity Score in 28 joints with C-reactive protein <2.6 (26% versus 4% and 11%), low disease activity and remission, and improved physical function, with results maintained over 48 weeks. Upadacitinib treatment numerically inhibited structural progression versus placebo at week 26. Serious infection and herpes zoster rates were numerically higher with upadacitinib versus adalimumab (2.7 versus 1.7 and 2.3 versus 1.1 events/100 patient-years, respectively) over 48 weeks. CONCLUSION: Consistent with the global population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to MTX, in CEE patients, upadacitinib 15 mg demonstrated clinical and functional improvements versus placebo and adalimumab, radiographic improvements versus placebo, and reasonable safety, over 48 weeks.

Induction of response with etanercept-methotrexate therapy in patients with moderately active rheumatoid arthritis in Central and Eastern Europe in the PRESERVE study.

Biologics have mainly been assessed in patients with severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) globally. Less attention has been paid to moderately active disease, especially in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Access to biologics and the disease features of RA patients may differ in CEE, relative to other regions. We assessed the clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of treatment from CEE patients in the multinational PRESERVE study ( NCT00565409 ). Patients with moderate RA 28-joint disease activity score ((DAS28) erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) >3.2 and ≤5.1) despite methotrexate (MTX) treatment received open-label etanercept (ETN) 50 mg QW + MTX for 36 weeks. Low disease activity (DAS28 low disease activity (LDA) ≤3.2) and remission (DAS28 ESR <2.6) were assessed. PROs included Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), patient global assessment (PGA), EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D), pain visual analogue scale (VAS), Medical Outcomes Study sleep questionnaire (MOS Sleep), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment for RA (WPAI-RA). Descriptive summary statistics were employed. Of the 834 enrolled patients, 302 were from CEE. At baseline, CEE patients had similar disease states versus the overall population. By week 36, LDA was achieved by 87 %, remission by 67 %, and normal HAQ-DI (≤0.5) by 53 % of patients. Mean scores (SDs) for PROs significantly improved by week 36 as follows: HAQ-DI total by -0.6 (0.5); PGA by -2.4 (2.1); EQ-5D total index by 0.2 (0.2). Pain VAS, MOS Sleep, FACIT, and WPAI-RA also showed significant improvements. In conclusion, induction therapy with ETN + MTX led to DAS28 LDA, remission, and improvements in PROs in most CEE patients with moderately active RA despite treatment with MTX. These results are similar to the overall study population in the PRESERVE trial.

Efficacy and safety of flavocoxid, a novel therapeutic, compared with naproxen: a randomized multicenter controlled trial in subjects with osteoarthritis of the knee.

INTRODUCTION: Flavocoxid is a novel flavonoid-based "dual inhibitor" of the 5-lipoxygenase (5-LOX) enzyme and the cyclooxygenase (COX) enzymes. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and safety of flavocoxid to naproxen in subjects with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: In this randomized, multicenter, double-blind study, 220 subjects were assigned to receive either flavocoxid (500 mg twice daily) or naproxen (500 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. The trial was structured to show noninferiority of flavocoxid to naproxen. Primary outcome measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and subscales and a timed walk. RESULTS: More than 90% of the subjects in both groups noted significant reduction in the signs and symptoms of knee OA. There were no statistically significant differences in efficacy between the flavocoxid and naproxen groups when the entire intent-to-treat population was analyzed. The flavocoxid group had significantly fewer upper gastrointestinal (UGI) and renal (edema) adverse events (AEs) as well as a strong trend toward fewer respiratory AEs. CONCLUSION: Flavocoxid, a first-in-class flavonoid-based therapeutic that inhibits COX-1 and COX-2 as well as 5-LOX, was as effective as naproxen in managing the signs and symptoms of OA of the knee. Flavocoxid demonstrated better UGI, renal (edema), and respiratory safety profiles than naproxen.

Efficacy and safety of flavocoxid compared with naproxen in subjects with osteoarthritis of the knee- a subset analysis.

OBJECTIVE: twice-daily flavocoxid, a cyclooxygenase and 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor with potent antioxidant activity of botanical origin, was evaluated for 12 weeks in a randomized, double-blind, active-comparator study against naproxen in 220 subjects with moderate-severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. As previously reported, both groups noted a significant reduction in the signs and symptoms of OA with no detectable differences in efficacy between the groups when the entire intent-to-treat population was considered. This post-hoc analysis compares the efficacy of flavocoxid to naproxen in different subsets of patients, specifically those related to age, gender, and disease severity as reported at baseline for individual response parameters. METHODS: in the original randomized, double-blind study, 220 subjects were assigned to receive either flavocoxid (500 mg twice daily) or naproxen (500 mg twice daily) for 12 weeks. In this subgroup analysis, primary outcome measures including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA index and subscales, timed walk, and secondary efficacy variables, including investigator global assessment for disease and global response to treatment, subject visual analog scale for discomfort, overall disease activity, global response to treatment, index joint tenderness and mobility, were evaluated for differing trends between the study groups. RESULTS: subset analyses revealed some statistically significant differences and some notable trends in favor of the flavocoxid group. These trends became stronger the longer the subjects continued on therapy. These observations were specifically noted in older subjects (>60 years), males and in subjects with milder disease, particularly those with lower subject global assessment of disease activity and investigator global assessment for disease and faster walking times at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: initial analysis of the entire intent-to-treat population revealed that flavocoxid was as effective as naproxen in managing the signs and symptoms of OA of the knee. Detailed analyses of subject subsets demonstrated distinct trends in favor of flavocoxid for specific groups of subjects.