Efficacy and safety of secukinumab in patients with spondyloarthritis and enthesitis at the Achilles tendon: results from a phase 3b trial.

OBJECTIVE: ACHILLES aimed to demonstrate efficacy of secukinumab on Achilles' tendon enthesitis in spondyloarthritis (SpA) patients. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years (n = 204) with active PsA or axial SpA and heel enthesitis were randomized 1:1 to secukinumab 150/300 mg or placebo up to week 24, and thereafter placebo patients were switched to secukinumab. RESULTS: At week 24, a higher, yet statistically non-significant (P = 0.136), proportion of patients in secukinumab vs placebo reported resolution of Achilles tendon enthesitis in affected foot (42.2% vs 31.4%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.63; 95% CI: 0.87, 3.08). Proportion of patients reporting resolution of enthesitis based on Leeds Enthesitis Index was higher with secukinumab vs placebo (33.3% vs 23.5%; OR = 1.65; 95% CI: 0.85, 3.25) at week 24. Mean change from baseline in heel pain at week 24 was higher in secukinumab patients vs placebo (-2.8 [3.0] vs -1.9 [2.7]). Greater improvements with secukinumab were observed in heel enthesopathy activity and global assessment of disease activity. Imaging evaluation by local reading confirmed heel enthesitis on MRI at screening for all patients. Based on central reading, 56% presented with bone marrow oedema and/or tendinitis; according to Heel Enthesitis MRI Scoring System (HEMRIS) post hoc analysis, 76% had signs of entheseal inflammation while 86% had entheseal inflammation and/or structural changes. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients showed no signs of inflammation on the centrally read MRIs despite a clinical diagnosis of heel enthesitis, thus highlighting that the discrepancy between the clinical and imaging assessments of enthesitis requires further investigation. Although ACHILLES did not meet the primary end point, the study reported clinically meaningful improvements in patient-related outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02771210.

Upadacitinib for psoriatic arthritis refractory to biologics: SELECT-PsA 2.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor under evaluation for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated upadacitinib in patients with PsA and prior inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). METHODS: In this 24-week randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial, 642 patients were randomised (2:2:1:1) to once per day upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg, placebo followed by upadacitinib 15 mg or placebo followed by upadacitinib 30 mg at week 24. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 response at week 12. Achievement of minimal disease activity (MDA) was assessed at week 24. Treatment-emergent adverse events are reported for all patients who received at least one dose of trial drug. RESULTS: At week 12, significantly more patients receiving upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg versus placebo achieved ACR20 (56.9% and 63.8% vs 24.1%; p<0.001 for both comparisons). At week 24, MDA was achieved by more upadacitinib 15 mg-treated (25.1%) and 30 mg-treated patients (28.9%) versus placebo (2.8%; p<0.001 for both comparisons). Generally, the rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar with placebo and upadacitinib 15 mg and higher with upadacitinib 30 mg at week 24. Rates of serious infections were 0.5%, 0.5% and 2.8% with placebo, upadacitinib 15 mg and upadacitinib 30 mg, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this trial of patients with active PsA who had inadequate response or intolerance to at least one biologic DMARD, upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg was more effective than placebo over 24 weeks in improving signs and symptoms of PsA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03104374.

An international, multicentre, double-blind, randomized study (DISSCO): effect of diacerein vs celecoxib on symptoms in knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate whether diacerein has comparable efficacy with celecoxib in pain reduction for treatment in symptomatic knee OA patients. METHODS: This randomized double-blind multicentre non-inferiority trial evaluated diacerein vs celecoxib treatment in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-3 and pain scoring ≥4 (10-cm VAS). Patients were randomized to 6 months of treatment with diacerein 50 mg (n = 187) once daily for 1 month and twice daily thereafter, or celecoxib 200 mg (n = 193) once daily. The primary outcome was the change in WOMAC pain score (0-50 cm) at 6 months, and the secondary outcomes were WOMAC sub-scores, VAS pain score, and the OMERACT-OARSI responder rate. RESULTS: In the per protocol population, the adjusted mean change from baseline in the WOMAC pain score was -11.1 ( 0.9) with diacerein (n = 140) and -11.8 (0.9) with celecoxib (n = 148). The intergroup difference was 0.7 (95% CI: -1.8, 3.2; P = 0.597), meeting the non-inferiority margin. Supportive analysis of the intention-to-treat population gave similar results. Other outcomes showed no significant difference between treatment groups. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low and balanced between groups, but a greater incidence of diarrhoea occurred with diacerein (10.2% vs 3.7%). Diarrhoea was considered mild-to-moderate in all but one case with complete resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Diacerein was non-inferior to celecoxib in reducing knee OA pain and improving physical function. Diacerein also demonstrated a good safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: A multicentre study on the effect of DIacerein on Structure and Symptoms vs Celecoxib in Osteoarthritis is a National Institutes of Health (NCT02688400) and European Clinical Trial Database (2015-002933-23) registered phase III (Canada) or IV (Europe) study.

Effects of BI 655064, an antagonistic anti-CD40 antibody, on clinical and biomarker variables in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase IIa study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, efficacy and therapeutic mechanism of BI 655064, an antagonistic anti-CD40 monoclonal antibody, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR). METHODS: In total, 67 patients were randomised to receive weekly subcutaneous doses of 120 mg BI 655064 (n=44) or placebo (n=23) for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. RESULTS: At week 12, the primary endpoint was not met, with 68.2% of patients treated with BI 655064 achieving an ACR20 vs 45.5% with placebo (p=0.064); using Bayesian analysis, the posterior probability of seeing a difference greater than 35% was 42.9%. BI 655064 was associated with greater changes in CD40-CD40L pathway-related markers, including reductions in inflammatory and bone resorption markers (interleukin-6, matrix metalloproteinase-3, receptor activator of nuclear factor-κB ligand), concentration of autoantibodies (immunoglobulin [Ig]G rheumatoid factor [RF], IgM RF, IgA RF) and CD95+ activated B-cell subsets. No serious adverse events (AEs) related to BI 655064 treatment or thromboembolic events occurred; reported AEs were mainly of mild intensity. CONCLUSION: Although blockade of the CD40-CD40L pathway with BI 655064 in MTX-IR patients with RA resulted in marked changes in clinical and biological parameters, including reductions in activated B-cells, autoantibody production and inflammatory and bone resorption markers, with a favourable safety profile, clinical efficacy was not demonstrated in this small phase IIa study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01751776.

Romosozumab (sclerostin monoclonal antibody) versus teriparatide in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis transitioning from oral bisphosphonate therapy: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous bisphosphonate treatment attenuates the bone-forming effect of teriparatide. We compared the effects of 12 months of romosozumab (AMG 785), a sclerostin monoclonal antibody, versus teriparatide on bone mineral density (BMD) in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis transitioning from bisphosphonate therapy. METHODS: This randomised, phase 3, open-label, active-controlled study was done at 46 sites in North America, Latin America, and Europe. We enrolled women (aged ≥55 to ≤90 years) with postmenopausal osteoporosis who had taken an oral bisphosphonate for at least 3 years before screening and alendronate the year before screening; an areal BMD T score of -2·5 or lower at the total hip, femoral neck, or lumbar spine; and a history of fracture. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive subcutaneous romosozumab (210 mg once monthly) or subcutaneous teriparatide (20 µg once daily). The primary endpoint was percentage change from baseline in areal BMD by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry at the total hip through month 12 (mean of months 6 and 12), which used a linear mixed effects model for repeated measures and represented the mean treatment effect at months 6 and 12. All randomised patients with a baseline measurement and at least one post-baseline measurement were included in the efficacy analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01796301. FINDINGS: Between Jan 31, 2013, and April 29, 2014, 436 patients were randomly assigned to romosozumab (n=218) or teriparatide (n=218). 206 patients in the romosozumab group and 209 in the teriparatide group were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Through 12 months, the mean percentage change from baseline in total hip areal BMD was 2·6% (95% CI 2·2 to 3·0) in the romosozumab group and -0·6% (-1·0 to -0·2) in the teriparatide group; difference 3·2% (95% CI 2·7 to 3·8; p<0·0001). The frequency of adverse events was generally balanced between treatment groups. The most frequently reported adverse events were nasopharyngitis (28 [13%] of 218 in the romosozumab group vs 22 [10%] of 214 in the teriparatide group), hypercalcaemia (two [<1%] vs 22 [10%]), and arthralgia (22 [10%] vs 13 [6%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 17 (8%) patients on romosozumab and in 23 (11%) on teriparatide; none were judged treatment related. There were six (3%) patients in the romosozumab group compared with 12 (6%) in the teriparatide group with adverse events leading to investigational product withdrawal. INTERPRETATION: Transition to a bone-forming agent is common practice in patients treated with bisphosphonates, such as those who fracture while on therapy. In such patients, romosozumab led to gains in hip BMD that were not observed with teriparatide. These data could inform clinical decisions for patients at high risk of fracture. FUNDING: Amgen, Astellas, and UCB Pharma.

Safety, immunogenicity and efficacy after switching from reference infliximab to biosimilar SB2 compared with continuing reference infliximab and SB2 in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results of a randomised, double-blind, phase III transition study.

OBJECTIVES: Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity results from the phase III study of SB2, a biosimilar of reference infliximab (INF), were previously reported through 54 weeks. This transition period compared results in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who switched from INF to SB2 with those in patients who maintained treatment with INF or SB2. METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate treatment were randomised (1:1) to receive SB2 or INF at weeks 0, 2 and 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter until week 46. At week 54, patients previously receiving INF were rerandomised (1:1) to switch to SB2 (INF/SB2 (n=94)) or to continue on INF (INF/INF (n=101)) up to week 70. Patients previously receiving SB2 continued on SB2 (SB2/SB2 (n=201)) up to week 70. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were assessed up to week 78. RESULTS: Efficacy was sustained and comparable across treatment groups. American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20 responses between weeks 54 and 78 ranged from 63.5% to 72.3% with INF/SB2, 66.3%%-69.4% with INF/INF and 65.6%-68.3% with SB2/SB2. Treatment-emergent adverse events during this time occurred in 36.2%, 35.6% and 40.3%, respectively, and infusion-related reactions in 3.2%, 2.0% and 3.5%. Among patients who were negative for antidrug antibodies (ADA) up to week 54, newly developed ADAs were reported in 14.6%, 14.9% and 14.1% of the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy, safety and immunogenicity profiles remained comparable among the INF/SB2, INF/INF and SB2/SB2 groups up to week 78, with no treatment-emergent issues or clinically relevant immunogenicity after switching from INF to SB2. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01936181; EudraCT number: 2012-005733-37.

A randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing SB2, an infliximab biosimilar, to the infliximab reference product Remicade in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SB2 to the infliximab reference product (INF) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy. METHODS: This is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, multinational, multicentre parallel group study. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate therapy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SB2 or INF of 3 mg/kg. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 30. Inclusion of the 95% CI of the ACR20 response difference within a ±15% margin was required for equivalence. RESULTS: 584 subjects were randomised into SB2 (N=291; 290 analysed) or INF (N=293). The ACR20 response at week 30 in the per-protocol set was 64.1% in SB2 versus 66.0% in INF. The adjusted rate difference was -1.88% (95% CI -10.26% to 6.51%), which was within the predefined equivalence margin. Other efficacy outcomes such as ACR50/70, disease activity score measured by 28 joints and European League against Rheumatism response were similar between SB2 and INF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (57.6% in SB2 vs 58.0% in INF) as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADA) to infliximab up to week 30 (55.1% in SB2 vs 49.7% in INF). The PK profile was similar between SB2 and INF. Efficacy, safety and PK by ADA subgroup were comparable between SB2 and INF. CONCLUSIONS: SB2 was equivalent to INF in terms of ACR20 response at week 30. SB2 was well tolerated with a comparable safety profile, immunogenicity and PK to INF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01936181.

Comparing biosimilar SB2 with reference infliximab after 54 weeks of a double-blind trial: clinical, structural and safety results.

Objectives: SB2 is a biosimilar to the reference infliximab (INF). Similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity between SB2 and INF up to 30 weeks were previously reported. This report investigates such clinical similarity up to 54 weeks, including structural joint damage. Methods: In this phase III, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study, patients with moderate to severe RA despite MTX were randomized (1:1) to receive 3 mg/kg of either SB2 or INF at 0, 2, 6 and every 8 weeks thereafter. Dose escalation by 1.5 mg/kg up to a maximum dose of 7.5 mg/kg was allowed after week 30. Efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were measured at each visit up to week 54. Radiographic damage evaluated by modified total Sharp score was measured at baseline and week 54. Results: A total of 584 patients were randomized to receive SB2 (n = 291) or INF (n = 293). The rate of radiographic progression was comparable between SB2 and INF (mean modified total Sharp score difference: SB2, 0.38; INF, 0.37) at 1 year. ACR responses, 28-joint DAS, Clinical Disease Activity Index and Simplified Disease Activity Index were comparable between SB2 and INF up to week 54. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events and anti-drug antibodies were comparable between treatment groups. Such comparable trends of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity were consistent from baseline up to 54 weeks. The pattern of dose increment was also comparable between SB2 and INF. Conclusion: SB2 maintained similar efficacy, safety and immunogenicity with INF up to 54 weeks in patients with moderate to severe RA. Radiographic progression was comparable at 1 year. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01936181) and EudraCT (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu; 2012-005733-37).

Effect of treatment with original or biosimilar adalimumab on SARS-CoV2 vaccination antibody titers.

The technological process of production of biosimilars determines the degree of biosimilarity to the original biological drug. In particular, the focus is on the similarity of immunogenic responses. The primary endpoint of our retrospective study was to find the differences in SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between patients treated with original adalimumab and biosimilar adalimumab MSB11022 (Idacio) and the differences in the SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between patients treated with and without biological treatment. We collected the gender, autoimmune disease type, age, and treatment data of the patients in the outpatient clinic MEDICAL PLUS, s.r.o., Uherske Hradiste. These patients suffer from autoimmune rheumatic diseases. All patients received the mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech - BNT162b2), with a 21-day (interquartile range, 21-24) gap between the two vaccinations. Patients receiving adalimumab were able to develop cellular immune responses after the second vaccination dose, as well as the individuals without adalimumab. In the period of 6-23 weeks after the second vaccination dose (D63 - D182), the SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels did not change significantly in the patients receiving the original adalimumab, while in the patients receiving biosimilar adalimumab a significant decrease was revealed. A statistically significant difference in the SARS-CoV-2 antibody amount between the patients without biological treatment (median: 504.3 U/mL) and with biological treatment (Original and Biosimilar - median: 47.2 and 28.2 U/mL, respectively) was confirmed on day 182. According to our observation, the effect of the treatment type on the increase/decrease of antibodies over time is dominant, while the impact of other variables (gender, methotrexate treatment, autoimmune disease type, and age) was confirmed as insignificant or minor.

Efficacy and Safety of Intravenous Secukinumab in Patients With Active Axial Spondyloarthritis: Results From a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Study.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) secukinumab for the treatment of adults with active axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in INVIGORATE-1. METHODS: INVIGORATE-1 (NCT04156620) was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial in patients with active axSpA (either radiographic or nonradiographic). Patients were randomized one to one to receive IV secukinumab (6 mg/kg at baseline followed by 3 mg/kg every four weeks) or IV placebo for 16 weeks. After week 16, patients randomized to placebo were switched to IV secukinumab (3 mg/kg every four weeks), and patients randomized to secukinumab continued treatment through week 52. The primary endpoint was the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS40) response at week 16. Safety was evaluated through week 60. RESULTS: Among patients initially randomized to IV secukinumab (n = 264) or placebo (n = 262), 86.0% and 88.9% completed the entire 60-week study period, respectively. A higher proportion of patients receiving secukinumab versus placebo met the primary endpoint (ASAS40 response) at week 16 (40.9% vs 22.9%; P < 0.0001). By week 24, patients who switched from placebo to secukinumab at week 16 achieved ASAS40 response rates comparable to those in patients originally randomized to secukinumab. All secondary efficacy endpoints were met at week 16, and responses were sustained through week 52. No new or unexpected safety signals were observed with IV secukinumab. CONCLUSION: IV secukinumab was effective for the treatment of adults with active axSpA over 52 weeks. The safety profile was consistent with that in previous reports on subcutaneous secukinumab.

Equivalence trial of proposed denosumab biosimilar GP2411 and reference denosumab in postmenopausal osteoporosis: the ROSALIA study.

Denosumab is a monoclonal antibody used to reduce risk of fractures in osteoporosis. ROSALIA was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, integrated phase I/phase III study comparing the efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), immunogenicity, and safety of proposed biosimilar denosumab GP2411 with reference denosumab (REF-DMAb) (Prolia®; Amgen). Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were randomized 1:1 to 2 60-mg doses of GP2411 or REF-DMAb, one at study start and one at week 26. At week 52, the REF-DMAb group was re-randomized 1:1 to a third dose of REF-DMAb or switch to GP2411. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline (%CfB) in LS-BMD at week 52. Secondary efficacy endpoints were %CfB in LS-BMD, FN-BMD, and TH-BMD at weeks 26 and 78 (and week 52 for FN-BMD and TH-BMD). Primary PK and PD endpoints were the area under the serum concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity and maximum drug serum concentration at week 26, and the area under the effect-time curve of the %CfB in serum CTX at week 26. Secondary PK and PD endpoints included drug serum concentrations and %CfB in serum CTX and P1NP during the study period. Similar efficacy was demonstrated at week 52, with 95% CIs of the difference in %CfB in LS-BMD between treatment groups fully contained within prespecified equivalence margins. Similarity in PK and PD was demonstrated at week 26. Immunogenicity was similar between groups and was not impacted by treatment switch. The rate of new vertebral fractures was comparable. Treatment-emergent adverse events were comparable between groups (63.6% [GP2411/GP2411]; 76.0% [REF-DMAb/REF-DMAb]; 76.6% [REF-DMAb/GP2411]). In conclusion, ROSALIA showed similar efficacy, PK and PD, and comparable safety and immunogenicity of GP2411 to REF-DMAb in postmenopausal osteoporosis.

Denosumab is a biologic treatment that stops bone breakdown. This clinical trial evaluated how similar GP2411 (a denosumab biosimilar in development) is compared with European-approved reference denosumab in women with post-menopausal osteoporosis. Biosimilars are highly similar to the original treatment ('reference denosumab') and may have a lower price. 263 patients were randomly assigned to receive GP2411 and 264 to reference denosumab. Treatment was given at the study beginning, at Week 26 and at Week 52. 124 patients were re-assigned at Week 52 to test the effect of changing from reference denosumab to GP2411. The study showed similarity in how the body interacts with the treatments, what effects the treatment has (both measured over 26 weeks), and bone mineral density (measured over 78 weeks). Antibody responses to GP2411 were detected in similar proportions of patients on each treatment. Reported adverse events were similar between treatments before Week 52, and from Week 52 to 78, and <5% of patients experienced serious adverse events. A change of treatment from reference denosumab to GP2411 did not affect outcomes. These results showed similarity between GP2411 and reference denosumab in this population. In future, GP2411 may enable more patients to benefit from denosumab.

Proposed Denosumab Biosimilar SB16 vs Reference Denosumab in Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: Phase 3 Results Up to Month 12.

CONTEXT: SB16 is a proposed biosimilar to reference denosumab (DEN; brand name: Prolia). OBJECTIVE: This phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter study evaluated the biosimilarity of SB16 to DEN in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO; NCT04664959). DESIGN: The study included 457 PMO patients who had a lumbar spine or total hip T-score between -2.5 and -4. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 60 mg of SB16 or DEN subcutaneously at Month 0 and Month 6. At Month 12, patients were re-randomized to continue with the assigned treatment or switch from DEN to SB16 up to Month 18. This report includes results up to Month 12. METHODS: The primary endpoint was the percent change from baseline in lumbar spine bone mineral density (BMD) at Month 12. Secondary endpoints including the percent change from baseline in BMD of the lumbar spine (except for Month 12), total hip and femoral neck; pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic (serum C-telopeptide of type I collagen [CTX] and procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide [P1NP]), safety, and immunogenicity profiles were measured up to Month 12. RESULTS: The least-squares mean differences in percent change from baseline in lumbar spine BMD at Month 12 were 0.33% (90% confidence interval [CI]: -0.25, 0.91) in the full analysis set and 0.39% (95% CI: -0.36, 1.13) in the per-protocol set; both within the pre-defined equivalence margin. The secondary endpoints were comparable between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The reported efficacy, PK, PD, safety, and immunogenicity data support the biosimilarity of SB16 to DEN.

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.

Usability Study of PF-06410293, an Adalimumab Biosimilar, by Prefilled Pen: Open-Label, Single-Arm, Sub-Study of a Phase 3 Trial in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this sub-study was to evaluate injection success of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and their caregivers administering the adalimumab (ADL) biosimilar, PF-06410293 (ADL-PF: adalimumab-afzb; Abrilada®/Amsparity®/Xilbrilada®) by prefilled pen (PFP) during the open-label treatment period in year two (weeks 52-78) of a phase 3 multinational, double-blind, clinical study (NCT02480153) comparing ADL-PF and reference ADL (Humira®) sourced from the EU. METHODS: This sub-study included adult patients with active RA not adequately controlled by methotrexate. Patients received subcutaneous ADL-PF 40 mg by prefilled syringe (PFS) at weeks 52 and 54, then six biweekly doses (weeks 56-66) of ADL-PF 40 mg each via a single-use PFP device. Training was given on first injection at week 56; all injections were given by patients/caregivers. The primary endpoint was delivery system success rate (DSSR): the percentage of participants (i.e., actual PFP user) achieving delivery success for each of the six attempted PFP injections. Injection success was recorded by the observer (Observer Assessment Tool) and participant (Participant Assessment Tool). RESULTS: In total, 50 patients with no experience self-injecting with an autoinjector/injection pen were included (74.0% female; mean age at screening, 54.9 years; mean RA duration, 8.0 years). Of these, 49 (98.0%) completed the sub-study and 46 (92.0%) received all six PFP injections. Overall DSSR (n = 294 injections) across visits was 100% (95% CI 92.0-100.0%). Complete injection was confirmed following inspection of 292 used and returned PFPs. A total of 47/49 (95.9%) participants who completed the sub-study elected to continue study treatment using PFP injections, rather than switching back to the PFS. CONCLUSIONS: All actual PFP users could safely and effectively administer ADL-PF by PFP at each visit, and nearly all participants who completed the sub-study elected to continue study treatment using PFP injections. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480153; EudraCT number: 2014-000352-29.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of intra-articular injection of HYALGO in the management of knee osteoarthritis symptoms: A multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The reduced concentration of hyaluronic acid in the synovial fluid, leading to impairment of joint function and painful symptomatology during knee osteoarthritis (OA), can be restored by using injectable formulations of hyaluronic acid (HA) and chondroitin sulfate (CS), variable for relative composition, HA/CS molecular modifications, and injection protocols. The present study aims to assess the safety and performance of the intra-articular (IA) viscosupplementing agent HYALGO, a formulation combining 40 mg/mL HA (>1700 kDa) and 40 mg/mL CS, in the treatment of patients suffering from knee OA. METHODS: 74 patients affected by knee lesions classified as grade II and III according to Kellgren and Lawrence classification were prospectively recruited and treated with three HYALGO injections (2 mL) given one week apart. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain changes were monitored at each injection and over-time at 6, 14, and 26 weeks of follow-up. Secondary endpoints were: Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), Patient's Global Assessment (PGA) score, Clinical Observer Global Assessment (COGA) score, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Committee (OMERACT) and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responders rates. Patients were also assessed for changes in their ultrasound joint scores according to the criteria of the OMERACT US Task Force Group. RESULTS: Pain reduction was statistically significant starting from the first IA injection. Mean pain reduction from baseline to week 26 was -90.6%. At 26 weeks, WOMAC Pain was reduced by -62.7%, WOMAC Stiffness by -47.2%, WOMAC Physical Function by -54.1%; Total WOMAC by -53.8%. The VAS PGA change from baseline was -48.0 [mm] and VAS COGA -41.0 [mm]. Responders at week 26 were 78.4%. Ultrasound parameters (joint effusion, synovial thickness, and popliteal cysts) improved or remained stable from baseline to week 6. CONCLUSIONS: Three injections of HYALGO were safe and effective to manage symptomatic knee OA, with a beneficial effect that increased progressively over time, peaking 6 months after injection.

Improvement of Signs and Symptoms of Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis in Patients Treated With Secukinumab: Primary Results of a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the primary (1-year) results from PREVENT, the first phase III study evaluating secukinumab in patients with active nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: A total of 555 patients were randomized (1:1:1) to receive subcutaneous secukinumab 150 mg with a loading dose (loading dose [LD] group), secukinumab 150 mg without a loading dose (non-loading dose [NL] group), or placebo weekly and then every 4 weeks starting at week 4. The NL group received placebo at weeks 1, 2, and 3 to maintain blinding. Switch to open-label secukinumab or standard of care was permitted after week 20. The study had 2 independent analysis plans, per European Union and non-US (plan A; week 16) and US (plan B; week 52) regulatory requirements. The primary end point was 40% improvement in disease activity according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS40) criteria at week 16 (in the LD group) and at week 52 (in the NL group) in tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naive patients. Safety analyses included all patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 481 patients completed 52 weeks of treatment, including 84.3% (156 of 185) in the LD group, 89.7% (165 of 184) in the NL group, and 86.0% (160 of 186) in the placebo group. The proportion of patients who switched to open-label or standard of care between weeks 20 and 48 was 50.8% in the LD group, 47.3% in the NL group, and 64.0% in the placebo group. Both primary and all secondary end points were met at week 16. The proportion of TNFi-naive patients who met ASAS40 was significantly higher for LD at week 16 (41.5%) and NL at week 52 (39.8%) versus placebo (29.2% at week 16 and 19.9% at week 52; both P < 0.05). No new safety findings were reported. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that secukinumab 150 mg provides significant and sustained improvement in signs and symptoms of nonradiographic axial SpA through 52 weeks. Safety was consistent with previous reports.

Upadacitinib in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis and Inadequate Response to Biologics: 56-Week Data from the Randomized Controlled Phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 Study.

INTRODUCTION: Upadacitinib is a Janus kinase inhibitor under investigation in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study assessed the 56-week efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in patients with PsA and an inadequate response or intolerance to biologic therapy. METHODS: In the phase 3 SELECT-PsA 2 study, patients were randomized to 56 weeks of blinded treatment with oral upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg once daily, or placebo switched to upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg once daily at week 24. Efficacy endpoints included the proportion of patients achieving 20/50/70% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20/50/70), 75/90/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75/90/100), and minimal disease activity. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Of 641 patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug, 479 (74.7%) completed 56 weeks of treatment. Improvements in the proportion of patients achieving ACR20/50/70, PASI75/90/100, and minimal disease activity were maintained with both doses of upadacitinib through 56 weeks. Week 56 results for patients who switched from placebo to upadacitinib at week 24 were similar to those for patients originally randomized to the upadacitinib groups. The exposure-adjusted event rate for serious infections was 2.6 and 6.1 events/100 patient-years in the upadacitinib 15 and 30 mg groups, respectively. Herpes zoster occurred more frequently with upadacitinib 30 versus 15 mg; most cases were non-serious. CONCLUSION: In patients with PsA who had an inadequate response or intolerance to biologic therapy, the efficacy of upadacitinib was maintained over 56 weeks with no new significant safety signals observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03104374.

Efficacy and Safety of Ixekizumab in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis and Inadequate Response to TNF Inhibitors: 3-Year Follow-Up (SPIRIT-P2).

PURPOSE: Ixekizumab is a high-affinity monoclonal antibody that selectively targets interleukin-17A. The objective of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy and safety (to week 156) of ixekizumab in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to one or two tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. METHODS: In the SPIRIT-P2 study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02349295), patients were randomized to placebo or ixekizumab 80 mg every 4 weeks (IXE Q4W) or every 2 weeks (IXE Q2W) following a 160-mg starting dose. During the extension period (weeks 24-156), patients maintained their original ixekizumab dose, and placebo patients received IXE Q4W or IXE Q2W (1:1). Exposure-adjusted incidence rates (IRs) per 100 patient-years (PY) are presented. RESULTS: Of 363 patients enrolled in the study, 310 entered the extension period. In all patients treated with IXE Q4W and IXE Q2W at week 0, responses persisted to week 156. At week 156, clinical responses (observed) in patients treated with IXE Q4W and IXE Q2W were assessed [American College of Rheumatology (ACR) response criteria and minimal disease activity (MDA) criteria]: 84 and 85% showed 20% improvement (ACR20); 60 and 58% showed 50% improvement (ACR50); 35 and 47% showed 70% improvement (ACR70), respectively; and 48 and 54% showed MDA. Placebo patients re-randomized to ixekizumab also demonstrated sustained efficacy, as measured by ACR and MDA responses. In the All Ixekizumab Exposure Safety Population (n = 337), with 644 PY of ixekizumab exposure, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 286 patients (44.4 IR). The most common TEAEs were upper respiratory tract infection (9.80 IR), nasopharyngitis (8.2 IR), sinusitis (6.2 IR), and bronchitis (4.5 IR). Serious adverse events were reported by 42 (6.5 IR) patients (included 3 deaths and 10 infections). CONCLUSION: In this 156-week study of ixekizumab, improvements in signs and symptoms of psoriatic arthritis and the safety profile remained consistent with those in previous reports. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02349295.

Secukinumab 150/300 mg Provides Sustained Improvements in the Signs and Symptoms of Active Ankylosing Spondylitis: 3-Year Results from the Phase 3 MEASURE 3 Study.

OBJECTIVE: Secukinumab 150 mg has demonstrated significant improvement in signs and symptoms of ankylosing spondylitis (AS), with response rates sustained for up to 5 years. Here, we report end-of-study 3-year efficacy and safety results of secukinumab 150 and 300 mg from the MEASURE 3 study. METHODS: A total of 226 patients was randomized to intravenous secukinumab 10 mg/kg (baseline, weeks 2 and 4) followed by subcutaneous (s.c.) secukinumab 300/150 mg every 4 weeks or a matched placebo. At week 16, placebo patients were re-randomized to s.c. secukinumab 300/150 mg. Analysis at week 156 included patients initially randomized to secukinumab and those who switched from placebo to secukinumab at week 16 (any secukinumab 300/150 mg). Outcome measures at week 156 included Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) 20/40, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index, ASAS partial remission (PR), ASAS 5/6, and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score-C-reactive protein inactive disease. RESULTS: The retention rates from weeks 16 to 156 were 80.5% and 80.9% in secukinumab 300 and 150 mg, respectively. ASAS 20/40 response rates at week 156 were 75.0%/56.5% and 68.2%/47.7% for secukinumab 300 and 150 mg, respectively. At week 156, response rates on more stringent clinical end points (eg, ASAS 40, ASAS-PR) were higher with the 300-mg dose, particularly in tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-inadequate responder (IR) patients. No new safety findings were observed. CONCLUSION: Secukinumab (300 and 150 mg) provided sustained improvements through 3 years in the signs and symptoms of active AS. Improvements with secukinumab 300 mg were numerically higher compared with the 150-mg dose for some higher hurdle end points and in TNF-IR patients. The safety profile of secukinumab was consistent with previous reports.

Switching to Biosimilar SDZ-ADL in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: 48-Week Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity Results From the Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind ADMYRA Study.

BACKGROUND: Sandoz adalimumab SDZ-ADL (GP-2017) is an approved adalimumab biosimilar with similar efficacy and comparable safety and immunogenicity to reference adalimumab (ref-ADL) as confirmed by analytical, pharmacokinetic and confirmatory studies. ADMYRA, a phase III double-blind study, was conducted with an aim to generate efficacy, safety and immunogenicity comparability data in patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having inadequate response to disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) including methotrexate (MTX). The study also evaluated an aspect of 'switching' reference product to the biosimilar in terms of efficacy, safety and immunogenicity up to Week 48. METHODS: Eligible patients (N = 353) were randomized 1:1 to receive subcutaneous (sc) SDZ-ADL 40 mg (n = 177) or ref-ADL (n = 176) every other week from Week 0 to Week 24. At Week 24, all patients with at least a moderate response by Disease Activity Score-28 including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) in the SDZ-ADL group continued SDZ-ADL (n = 159), and in the ref-ADL group were switched to SDZ-ADL (n = 166), treated for up to 46 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in DAS28-CRP from baseline at Week 12. Other efficacy endpoints included proportion of patients with European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, EULAR remission, Boolean remission, safety and immunogenicity. RESULTS: The DAS28-CRP score changes from baseline at Week 12 were similar between SDZ-ADL (- 2.16) and ref-ADL (- 2.18) with a mean difference (95% CI) of 0.02 (- 0.24 to 0.27), which was within the pre-specified equivalence margin of ± 0.6. After switching treatment from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL, the mean DAS28-CRP change was similar between the SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' group (- 3.09 vs - 3.05). The proportion of patients with good/moderate EULAR response was 69.2%/29.0% in the SDZ-ADL group and 68.0%/29.6% in the 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' group. The proportion of patients in EULAR remission was 51.4% and 54.4% and in Boolean remission was 16.8% and 21.6% for SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' groups, respectively. The secondary endpoints were similar across the treatment groups. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and injection-site reactions were low and similar between SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' groups (AEs 70.6% vs 68.8%, injection-site reactions 4.0% vs 6.3%), and most of these patients experienced AEs of mild or moderate severity. Antidrug antibodies were detected in 24.2% and 25.6% of patients treated with SDZ-ADL and 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL', respectively, from baseline to Week 48, of which 72.5% in SDZ-ADL and 79.1% in 'ref-ADL/switched SDZ-ADL' groups were neutralizing. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had an inadequate response to DMARDs, SDZ-ADL demonstrated a similar efficacy and a comparable safety and immunogenicity profile to ref-ADL. Efficacy was sustained after switching from ref-ADL to SDZ-ADL with no impact on safety (NCT02744755).