Prevalence of preexisting articular bone pathology in patients with osteoarthritis screened for fasinumab clinical trials identified by X-ray or magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of preexisting articular bone pathology in patients with hip or knee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) screened for fasinumab clinical trials. METHOD: This post-hoc analysis included patients with OA screened for three phase 3 fasinumab studies (NCT02683239, NCT03161093, NCT03304379). During screening, participants who met other clinical inclusion/exclusion criteria underwent radiography of knees, hips, and shoulders. Those with Kellgren-Lawrence grade (KLG) ≥ 2 for index joint and without an exclusionary finding proceeded to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of index, contralateral, and KLG ≥ 3 joints. Exclusionary findings included bone fragmentation/collapse, bone loss/resorption, osteonecrosis, and fracture, by either X-ray or MRI. Participants with extensive subchondral cysts were also excluded. Prevalence of abnormalities on radiographs and MRIs are reported. RESULTS: Of 27,633 participants screened, 21,997 proceeded to imaging. Of these, 1203 (5.5%) were excluded due to the presence of ≥ 1 joint with severe articular bone pathology (X-ray or MRI): bone fragmentation/collapse (2.60%), subchondral insufficiency fracture (SIF; 1.67%), osteonecrosis (1.11%), and significant bone loss (0.32%). Additionally, 3.13% screen-failed due to extensive subchondral cysts. More than half of the exclusions due to bone fragmentation/collapse (386/572), osteonecrosis (141/245) and significant bone loss (59/71), and approximately one third of SIF (133/367) and extensive subchondral cysts (229/689) were evident on X-rays. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in 20 participants with OA who met the clinical screening criteria for fasinumab phase 3 trials were later excluded due to preexisting severe articular bone pathology findings by X-ray or MRI.

Efficacy and safety of fasinumab in patients with chronic low back pain: a phase II/III randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy and safety of fasinumab in moderate-to-severe, chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHODS: In this phase II/III, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CLBP aged ≥35 years with inadequate pain relief/intolerance to acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids were randomised to fasinumab 6 or 9 mg subcutaneous every 4 weeks (Q4W), 9 mg intravenous every 8 weeks (Q8W) or placebo. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 16 in average daily low back pain intensity (LBPI) numeric rating score. Key secondary efficacy variables included Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Patient Global Assessment (PGA). The results are based on a modified intent-to-treat analysis of 563/800 planned patients when enrolment was stopped early given emerging signals of joint risk in other osteoarthritis (OA) studies at doses being tested here. RESULTS: Significant placebo-adjusted LBPI reductions at week 16 were observed for fasinumab 9 mg Q4W and Q8W (least squares mean (standard error) -0.7 (0.3); both nominal p<0.05), but not 6 mg (-0.3 (0.3); p=0.39). RMDQ and PGA improvements to week 16 were greatest for fasinumab 9 mg intravenous. Numerically greater efficacy occurred in patients with, versus those without, peripheral OA (pOA) over 16 weeks. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) occurred in 274/418 (65.6%) patients in the combined fasinumab groups and 94/140 (67.1%) placebo patients. Joint AEs, mostly rapid progressive OA type 1, were more frequent in the combined fasinumab groups (19 events in 16 patients (3.8%) vs 1 event in 1 patient (0.7%) for placebo); all except one occurred in pOA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Fasinumab highest doses, but not lower dose, improved both CLBP pain and function. Most joint AEs occurred in pOA patients, consistent with earlier findings in symptomatic OA. Further study is needed of patients with CLBP with and without pOA to determine optimal benefit-risk.

Influence of subject discontinuation on long-term nonvertebral fracture rate in the denosumab FREEDOM Extension study.

BACKGROUND: Denosumab treatment for up to 8 years in the FREEDOM study and Extension was associated with low fracture incidence. It was not clear whether subjects who discontinued during the study conduct had a higher risk of fracture than those who remained enrolled, thereby underestimating the true fracture risk for the entire trial cohort. Thus, we explored the influence of early withdrawals on nonvertebral fracture incidence during the Extension study. METHODS: To understand the potential effect of depletion of susceptible subjects on fracture incidence, we first evaluated subject characteristics in patients who were enrolled in the Extension vs those who were not. We subsequently employed a Kaplan-Meier multiple imputation (KMMI) approach to consider subjects who discontinued as if they remained enrolled with a 0%, 20%, 50%, and 100% increase in fracture risk compared with participants remaining on study. RESULTS: Extension enrollees were generally similar to nonparticipants in median age (71.9 and 73.1 years, respectively), mean total hip bone mineral density T-score (-1.9 and -2.0, respectively), and probability of fracture risk by Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) at FREEDOM baseline (16.9% and 17.7% for major osteoporotic fracture and 6.7% and 7.4% for hip fracture, respectively). When we assumed a doubled fracture risk (100% increase) after discontinuation in KMMI analyses, nonvertebral fracture rate estimates were only marginally higher than the observed rates for both the crossover group (10.32% vs 9.16%, respectively) and the long-term group (7.63% vs 6.63%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The observation of continued denosumab efficacy over 8 years of treatment was robust and does not seem to be explained by depletion of susceptible subjects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov registration number NCT00523341 ; registered August 30, 2007.

Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Casirivimab and Imdevimab (CAS+IMD) in Pediatric Outpatients With COVID-19.

The safety of casirivimab+imdevimab (CAS+IMD) (anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies [mAbs]) in pediatric outpatients with COVID-19 was evaluated in a randomized, phase 1/2/3 trial. Consistent with adults, CAS+IMD was generally well tolerated with low drug-induced immunogenicity rates. The findings support development of next-generation anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs for at-risk pediatric patients.

Assessing the safety and pharmacokinetics of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) in a cohort of pregnant outpatients with COVID-19: results from an adaptive, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 1/2/3 study.

OBJECTIVE: Pregnant women with COVID-19 are at elevated risk for severe outcomes, but clinical data on management of these patients are limited. Monoclonal antibodies, such as casirivimab plus imdevimab (CAS+IMD), have proven effective in treating non-pregnant adults with COVID-19, prompting further evaluation in pregnant women. METHODS: A phase 3 portion of an adaptive, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the safety, clinical outcomes, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of CAS+IMD (1200 mg or 2400 mg) in the treatment of pregnant outpatients with COVID-19 (NCT04425629). Participants were enrolled between December 2020 and November 2021, prior to the emergence of Omicron-lineage variants against which CAS+IMD is not active. Safety was evaluated in randomised participants who received study drug (n=80); clinical outcomes were evaluated in all randomised participants (n=82). Only two pregnant participants received placebo, limiting conclusions regarding treatment effect. Infants born to pregnant participants were followed for developmental outcomes ≤1 year of age. RESULTS: In pregnant participants, CAS+IMD was well tolerated, with no grade ≥2 hypersensitivity or infusion-related reactions reported. There were no participant deaths, and only one COVID-19-related medically attended visit. Although two pregnancies (3%) reported issues in the fetus/neonate, they were confounded by maternal history or considered to be due to an alternate aetiology. No adverse developmental outcomes in infants ≤1 year of age were considered related to in utero exposure to the study drug. CAS+IMD 1200 mg and 2400 mg rapidly and similarly reduced viral loads, with a dose-proportional increase in concentrations of CAS+IMD in serum. Pharmacokinetics were consistent with that reported in the general population. Immunogenicity incidence was low. CONCLUSION: CAS+IMD treatment of pregnant outpatients with COVID-19 showed similar safety, clinical outcomes and pharmacokinetic profiles to that observed in non-pregnant adults. There was no evidence of an impact on developmental outcomes in infants ≤1 year of age. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04425629.

Casirivimab and Imdevimab Treatment Reduces Viral Load and Improves Clinical Outcomes in Seropositive Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients with Nonneutralizing or Borderline Neutralizing Antibodies.

We conducted a post hoc analysis in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for functional neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at baseline from a phase 1, 2, and 3 trial of casirivimab and imdevimab (CAS+IMD) treatment in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen prior to the emergence of Omicron-lineage variants. Patients were randomized to a single dose of 2.4 g CAS+IMD, 8.0 g CAS+IMD, or placebo. Patients seropositive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at baseline were analyzed by their baseline neutralizing antibody status. At baseline, 20.6% (178/864) of seropositive patients were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, indicating negative or very low functionally neutralizing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. CAS+IMD reduced viral load in patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies versus placebo, but not in patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies. In patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies, we observed a trend in reduction of the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation, as well as in all-cause mortality, by day 29 with CAS+IMD versus placebo. The proportions of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation from days 1 to 29 were 19.1% in the placebo group and 10.9% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group, and the proportions of patients who died (all-cause mortality) from days 1 to 29 were 16.2% in the placebo group and 9.1% in the CAS+IMD combined-dose group. In patients who were positive for neutralizing antibodies, no measurable harm or benefit was observed in either the proportion of patients who died or required mechanical ventilation or the proportion of patients who died (all-cause mortality). In hospitalized COVID-19 patients on low-flow or no supplemental oxygen, CAS+IMD reduced viral load, the risk of death or mechanical ventilation, and all-cause mortality in seropositive patients who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies. IMPORTANCE The clinical benefit of CAS+IMD in hospitalized seronegative patients with COVID-19 has previously been demonstrated, although these studies observed no clinical benefit in seropositive patients. As the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-seropositive individuals rises due to both vaccination and previous infection, it is important to understand whether there is a subset of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody treatment. This post hoc analysis demonstrates that there is a subset of hospitalized seropositive patients with inadequate SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing antibodies (i.e., those who were negative or borderline for neutralizing antibodies) who may still benefit from CAS+IMD treatment if infected with a susceptible SARS-CoV-2 variant. Therefore, utilizing serostatus alone to guide treatment decisions for patients with COVID-19 may fail to identify those seropositive patients who could benefit from anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibody therapies known to be effective against circulating strains, dependent upon how effectively their endogenous antibodies neutralize SARS-CoV-2.

The Efficacy, Tolerability, and Joint Safety of Fasinumab in Osteoarthritis Pain: A Phase IIb/III Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To prospectively assess the efficacy, general safety, and joint safety of fasinumab, an anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody, in osteoarthritis (OA) hip and/or knee pain. METHODS: Patients with moderate-to-severe OA pain (knee or hip) and history of inadequate response or intolerance to analgesics were randomized to receive fasinumab (at 1 mg, 3 mg, 6 mg, or 9 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks over 16 weeks and were followed up to week 36. Efficacy end points were the change from baseline to week 16 in the pain and physical function subscale scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC), and patient global assessment (PGA) of OA. Joints were monitored at scheduled assessments (by plain film radiography and magnetic resonance imaging) during treatment and follow-up, and if prompted, at the time of active joint symptoms. RESULTS: Of the 421 patients randomized, 342 completed the 36-week study. All doses of fasinumab yielded statistically significant and clinically important reductions in pain compared to placebo (least squares mean difference in WOMAC pain subscale scores at week 16 ranging -0.78 to -1.40), without any clear dose dependence. Physical function and PGA scores improved in parallel. Treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 17% with fasinumab and 10% with placebo, and 4% and 1% of patients, respectively, discontinued treatment. Arthropathies (25 in total, 7% of fasinumab-treated patients and 1% of placebo-treated patients) occurred in a dose-dependent manner, with 2 occurring in patients receiving the lowest dose of fasinumab and 10 in patients receiving the highest dose. Most of the arthropathies (16 of 25) were discovered with scheduled radiographs and not based on symptoms. Destructive arthropathy (in 1 of 337 treated patients) occurred in 1 patient who was receiving 6 mg fasimumab. CONCLUSION: Fasinumab provided improvements in OA pain and function, even in those benefitting little from previous analgesics. The observed benefit-to-risk relationship favors further clinical development to explore the lowest doses of fasinumab in patients with knee or hip OA.

Safety Observations With 3 Years of Denosumab Exposure: Comparison Between Subjects Who Received Denosumab During the Randomized FREEDOM Trial and Subjects Who Crossed Over to Denosumab During the FREEDOM Extension.

Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against receptor activator of NF-κB ligand (RANKL) that decreases osteoclast formation, function and survival, and is approved for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis at increased or high risk for fracture, among other indications. During the pivotal 3-year fracture trial FREEDOM, denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months significantly reduced new vertebral (68%), hip (40%), and nonvertebral (20%) fractures; increased bone mineral density (BMD); and reduced bone turnover markers compared with placebo in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Questions have arisen regarding imbalances of certain low-frequency adverse events (AEs) observed in FREEDOM, as well as the top 5 most frequent adverse reactions listed in the United States prescribing information (USPI; back pain, pain in extremity, musculoskeletal pain, hypercholesterolemia, and cystitis). We examined the incidences of these AEs in women who originally received placebo during FREEDOM and then received denosumab for up to 3 years during the FREEDOM Extension (Crossover Group). This provided a unique opportunity for comparison with the original 3-year denosumab FREEDOM observations. We also examined the incidences of these AEs over 6 years of denosumab treatment (Long-term Group; ie, comparing a second 3 years of treatment with findings in the first 3 years). There was no indication of increasing trends regarding the imbalances of either low-frequency AEs or common AEs observed in FREEDOM. © 2017 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

10 years of denosumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis: results from the phase 3 randomised FREEDOM trial and open-label extension.

BACKGROUND: Long-term safety and efficacy of osteoporosis treatment are important because of the chronic nature of the disease. We aimed to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of denosumab, which is widely used for the treatment of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: In the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 FREEDOM trial, postmenopausal women aged 60-90 years with osteoporosis were enrolled in 214 centres in North America, Europe, Latin America, and Australasia and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 60 mg subcutaneous denosumab or placebo every 6 months for 3 years. All participants who completed the FREEDOM trial without discontinuing treatment or missing more than one dose of investigational product were eligible to enrol in the open-label, 7-year extension, in which all participants received denosumab. The data represent up to 10 years of denosumab exposure for women who received 3 years of denosumab in FREEDOM and continued in the extension (long-term group), and up to 7 years for women who received 3 years of placebo and transitioned to denosumab in the extension (crossover group). The primary outcome was safety monitoring, comprising assessments of adverse event incidence and serious adverse event incidence, changes in safety laboratory analytes (ie, serum chemistry and haematology), and participant incidence of denosumab antibody formation. Secondary outcomes included new vertebral, hip, and non-vertebral fractures as well as bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and one-third radius. Analyses were done according to the randomised FREEDOM treatment assignments. All participants who received at least one dose of investigational product in FREEDOM or the extension were included in the combined safety analyses. All participants who enrolled in the extension with observed data were included in the efficacy analyses. The FREEDOM trial (NCT00089791) and its extension (NCT00523341) are both registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. FINDINGS: Between Aug 3, 2004, and June 1, 2005, 7808 women were enrolled in the FREEDOM study. 5928 (76%) women were eligible for enrolment in the extension, and of these, 4550 (77%) were enrolled (2343 long-term, 2207 crossover) between Aug 7, 2007, and June 20, 2008. 2626 women (1343 long-term; 1283 crossover) completed the extension. The yearly exposure-adjusted participant incidence of adverse events for all individuals receiving denosumab decreased from 165·3 to 95·9 per 100 participant-years over the course of 10 years. Serious adverse event rates were generally stable over time, varying between 11·5 and 14·4 per 100 participant-years. One atypical femoral fracture occurred in each group during the extension. Seven cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were reported in the long-term group and six cases in the crossover group. The yearly incidence of new vertebral fractures (ranging from 0·90% to 1·86%) and non-vertebral fractures (ranging from 0·84% to 2·55%) remained low during the extension, similar to rates observed in the denosumab group during the first three years of the FREEDOM study, and lower than rates projected for a virtual long-term placebo cohort. In the long-term group, BMD increased from FREEDOM baseline by 21·7% at the lumbar spine, 9·2% at total hip, 9·0% at femoral neck, and 2·7% at the one-third radius. In the crossover group, BMD increased from extension baseline by 16·5% at the lumbar spine, 7·4% at total hip, 7·1% at femoral neck, and 2·3% at one-third radius. INTERPRETATION: Denosumab treatment for up to 10 years was associated with low rates of adverse events, low fracture incidence compared with that observed during the original trial, and continued increases in BMD without plateau. FUNDING: Amgen.