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.

MRI of the joint and evaluation of the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-CCL17 axis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving otilimab: a phase 2a randomised mechanistic study.

BACKGROUND: Otilimab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a driver in many immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. We evaluated the effect of otilimab on the GM-CSF-chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 17 (CCL17) axis and synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: This phase 2a, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was done at nine sites across the USA, Poland, and Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis per American College of Rheumatology-European League Against Rheumatism 2010 criteria and receiving stable methotrexate were randomly assigned (3:1) by an interactive response technology system to either subcutaneous otilimab 180 mg or placebo once weekly for 5 weeks, then every other week until week 10 (within a 12-week treatment period), followed by a 10-week safety follow-up. Randomisation was stratified by early rheumatoid arthritis (≤2 years since diagnosis) and established rheumatoid arthritis (>2 years since diagnosis). Patients and study personnel (except for an unblinded coordinator or nurse who prepared and administered the study drug) were blinded to treatment assignment; the syringe was shielded during administration. Patients were enrolled by study investigators and allocated to a treatment by central randomisation on the basis of a schedule generated by the sponsor. The primary endpoint was change over time (assessed at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 22 of follow-up) in 112 biomarkers, including target engagement biomarkers and those that may be indicative of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity and response to otilimab. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in synovitis, osteitis and erosion assessed by rheumatoid arthritis MRI scoring system (RAMRIS) and rheumatoid arthritis MRI quantitative score (RAMRIQ), and safety evaluation. The primary, secondary, and safety endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Biomarker and MRI endpoints were analysed for differences between treatment groups using a repeated measures model. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02799472. FINDINGS: Between Aug 9, 2016, and Oct 30, 2017, 39 patients were randomly assigned and included in the analysis (otilimab n=28; placebo n=11). In the otilimab group, mean serum concentrations of GM-CSF-otilimab complex peaked at week 4 (138·4 ng/L, 95% CI 90·0-212·9) but decreased from week 6-12. CCL17 concentrations decreased from baseline to week 1, remained stable to week 8, and returned to baseline at week 12; least-squares mean ratio to baseline was 0·65 (95% CI 0·49-0·86; coefficient of variation 13·60) at week 2, 0·68 (0·53-0·88; 12·51) at week 4, 0·78 (0·60-1·00; 12·48) at week 6, and 0·68 (0·54-0·85; 11·21) at week 8. No meaningful change in CCL17 concentrations was observed with placebo. In the otilimab group, the least-squares mean ratio to baseline in MMP-degraded type I collagen was 0·86-0·91 over weeks 1-8, returning to baseline at week 12; concentrations remained above baseline at all timepoints in the placebo group. There were no observable differences between otilimab and placebo for all other biomarkers. At week 12, least-squares mean change in RAMRIS synovitis score from baseline was -1·3 (standard error [SE] 0·6) in the otilimab group and 0·8 (1·2) with placebo; RAMRIQ synovitis score showed a least-squares mean change from baseline of -1417·0 µl (671·5) in the otilimab group and -912·3 µl (1405·8) with placebo. Compared with placebo, otilimab did not show significant reductions from baseline to week 12 in RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and bone erosion, or in RAMRIQ synovitis and erosion damage. Adverse events were reported in 11 (39%) of 28 otilimab-treated and four (36%) of 11 placebo-treated patients, most commonly cough in the otilimab group (2 [7%] of 28; not reported in placebo group), and pain in extremity (four [36%] of 11) and rheumatoid arthritis (two [18%] of 11) in the placebo group (not reported in otilimab group). There were no serious adverse events or deaths. INTERPRETATION: Serum concentrations of GM-CSF-otilimab complex indicated that target engagement was achieved with initial weekly dosing, but not sustained with every other week dosing. CCL17 might be a pharmacodynamic biomarker for otilimab activity in future studies. Otilimab was well tolerated and, despite suboptimal exposure, showed some evidence for improved synovitis over 12 weeks in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and safety of the anti-granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody otilimab (GSK3196165) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, phase 2b, dose-ranging study.

BACKGROUND: The human monoclonal antibody otilimab inhibits granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a key driver in immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and key patient-reported outcomes related to pain in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving otilimab. METHODS: This phase 2b, dose-ranging, multicentre, placebo-controlled study was done at 64 sites across 14 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving stable methotrexate were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1) to subcutaneous placebo or otilimab 22·5 mg, 45 mg, 90 mg, 135 mg, or 180 mg, plus methotrexate, once weekly for 5 weeks, then every other week until week 50. The randomisation schedule was generated by the sponsor, and patients were assigned to treatment by interactive response technology. Randomisation was blocked (block size of six) but was not stratified. Investigators, patients, and the sponsor were blinded to treatment. An unblinded administrator prepared and administered the study drug. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved disease activity score for 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <2·6 at week 24. Patients who were not in the otilimab 180 mg group, without a good or moderate European League Against Rheumatism response (week 12) or with DAS28-CRP >3·2 (week 24) escaped to otilimab 180 mg. Patients who escaped were treated as non-responders in their original assigned group. Safety endpoints were incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events, infections, and pulmonary events. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02504671. FINDINGS: Between July 23, 2015, and Dec 29, 2017, 222 patients were randomly assigned (37 to each group). 86 (49%) of 175 escaped to otilimab 180 mg at week 12 and 57 (69%) of 83 at week 24. At week 24, the proportion of patients with DAS28-CRP <2·6 was two (5%) of 37 in the otilimab 22·5 mg group, six (16%) of 37 in the 45 mg group, seven (19%) of 37 in the 90 mg group, five (14%) of 37 in the 135 mg group, five (14%) of 37 in the 180 mg, and one (3%) of 37 in the placebo group. The largest difference was achieved with otilimab 90 mg (16·2%; odds ratio [OR] 8·39, 95% CI 0·98-72·14; p=0·053). Adverse events were reported pre-escape in 19-24 (51-65%) patients and post escape in 10-17 (40-61%) patients across otilimab dose groups and in 18 (49%) of 37 and 22 (67%) of 33 in the placebo group. The most common adverse event was nasopharyngitis: 3-9 (8-24%) in otilimab groups and one (3%) in the placebo group pre-escape and 1-3 (4-10%) in otilimab groups and seven (21%) in the placebo group post escape. Pre-escape serious adverse events were foot fracture (otilimab 45 mg); arthralgia, myocardial infarction, dizziness (otilimab 90 mg); oesophageal spasm, acute pyelonephritis (otilimab 22·5 mg), and uterine leiomyoma (otilimab 135 mg). Post-escape serious adverse events were ankle fracture (placebo) and rheumatoid arthritis (otilimab 135 mg). There were no deaths or pulmonary events of clinical concern, and rates of serious infection were low. INTERPRETATION: Otilimab plus methotrexate was well tolerated and, despite not achieving the primary endpoint of DAS28-CRP remission, there were improvements compared with placebo in disease activity scores. Of note, patients reported significant improvement in pain and physical function, supporting further clinical development of otilimab in rheumatoid arthritis. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

The prevalence, severity, and impact of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction: results of a US and European Patient Survey (PROBE 1).

OBJECTIVE: This multinational, Internet-based survey was designed to assess the prevalence, frequency, severity, and impact of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD) in patients receiving opioid therapy for chronic pain and taking laxatives. DESIGN: In total, 322 patients taking daily oral opioids and laxatives completed the 45-item questionnaire. At the time of the survey, 45% of patients reported <3 bowel movements per week. The most prevalent opioid-induced side effects were constipation (81%) and straining to pass a bowel movement (58%). Those side effects considered most bothersome by patients were (in order of rank) constipation, straining, fatigue, small or hard bowel movements, and insomnia. RESULTS: Most of the OBD symptoms specified in the questionnaire were experienced by the majority of patients >or=4 times a week. Constipation was the OBD symptom that was most often reported as severe. Most patients reported that their OBD symptoms had at least a moderate negative impact on their overall quality of life and activities of daily living. A third of patients had missed, decreased or stopped using opioids in order to make it easier to have a bowel movement. CONCLUSION: The survey findings confirm that OBD occurs frequently, despite the use of laxatives, in individuals taking daily oral opioids for chronic pain. These gastrointestinal symptoms add to the burden already experienced by chronic pain patients, negatively impacting quality of life and, in some cases, affecting opioid treatment itself.

Care after colonic operation--is it evidence-based? Results from a multinational survey in Europe and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite clinical evidence showing that steps can be taken perioperatively to enhance postoperative recovery and decrease morbidity in colonic operation patients, there is no comprehensive information on how widespread such practices are, or the combination of such steps into effective multimodal rehabilitation (fast-track) colonic surgery programs to decrease hospital stay. This survey investigated clinical practice around colonic operations across Europe and the United States. METHODS: The survey was conducted in 295 hospitals in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United States. Details of perioperative care and postoperative recovery were recorded for 1,082 patients who had undergone elective colonic operations and who were discharged (or died) over a 2-week period (United States: up to 4 weeks). RESULTS: Preoperative bowel clearance was used in >85% of patients. A nasogastric tube was left in situ postoperatively in 40% versus 66% of patients in the United States and Europe, respectively, and was removed about 3 days postoperatively. It took 3 to 4 days until 50% of the patients first tolerated liquids and 4 to 5 days until 50% of patients were eating and having a bowel movement. Postoperative ileus was found to persist for over 5 days in approximately 45% of patients. Mean length of postoperative hospital stay was over 10 days in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, and 7 days in the United States, compared with 2 to 5 days reported in trials of fast-track colonic surgery programs. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies that can contribute to improved recovery and reduced complications after colonic operations do not appear to be applied optimally in clinical practice across Europe and the United States. These findings indicate a potential for major improvements in outcomes and reduction of costs if peri- and postoperative care can be adjusted to be in line with published evidence.

Prevalence, risk factors, clinical consequences, and treatment of enteral feed intolerance during critical illness.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the incidence of enteral feed intolerance and factors associated with intolerance and to assess the influence of intolerance on nutrition and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from an international observational cohort study of nutrition practices among 167 intensive care units (ICUs). Data were collected on nutrition adequacy, ventilator-free days (VFDs), ICU stay, and 60-day mortality. Intolerance was defined as interruption of enteral nutrition (EN) due to gastrointestinal (GI) reasons (large gastric residuals, abdominal distension, emesis, diarrhea, or subjective discomfort). Logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for intolerance and their clinical significance. A sensitivity analysis restricted to sites specifying a gastric residual volume ≥200 mL to identify intolerance was also conducted. RESULTS: Data from 1,888 ICU patients were included. The incidence of intolerance was 30.5% and occurred after a median 3 days from EN initiation. Patients remained intolerant for a mean (±SD) duration of 1.9 ± 1.3 days . Intolerance was associated with worse nutrition adequacy vs the tolerant (56% vs 64%, P < .0001), fewer VFDs (2.5 vs 11.2, P < .0001), increased ICU stay (14.4 vs 11.3 days, P < .0001), and increased mortality (30.8% vs 26.2, P = .04). The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that intolerance remained associated with negative outcomes. Although mortality was greater among the intolerant patients, this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Intolerance occurs frequently during EN in critically ill patients and is associated with poorer nutrition and clinical outcomes.