Olokizumab versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cytokine interleukin-6 is involved in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Olokizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting the interleukin-6 cytokine directly, is being tested for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a 24-week, phase 3, multicenter, placebo- and active-controlled trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:2:2:1 ratio) patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate to receive subcutaneous olokizumab at a dose of 64 mg every 2 or 4 weeks, adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks), or placebo; all patients continued methotrexate therapy. The primary end point was an American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) response (≥20% fewer tender and swollen joints and ≥20% improvement in three of five other domains) at week 12, with each olokizumab dose tested for superiority to placebo. We also tested the noninferiority of each olokizumab dose to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response (noninferiority margin, -12 percentage points in the lower boundary of the 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between groups). RESULTS: A total of 464 patients were assigned to receive olokizumab every 2 weeks, 479 to receive olokizumab every 4 weeks, 462 to receive adalimumab, and 243 to receive placebo. An ACR20 response at week 12 occurred in 44.4% of the patients receiving placebo, in 70.3% receiving olokizumab every 2 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 25.9 percentage points; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 17.1 to 34.1), in 71.4% receiving olokizumab every 4 weeks (difference vs. placebo, 27.0 percentage points; 97.5% CI, 18.3 to 35.2), and in 66.9% receiving adalimumab (difference vs. placebo, 22.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 14.8 to 29.8) (P<0.001 for the superiority of each olokizumab dose to placebo). Both olokizumab doses were noninferior to adalimumab with respect to the percentage of patients with an ACR20 response at week 12 (difference, 3.4 percentage points [97.5% CI, -3.5 to 10.2] with olokizumab every 2 weeks and 4.5 percentage points [97.5% CI, -2.2 to 11.2] with olokizumab every 4 weeks). Adverse events, most commonly infections, occurred in approximately 70% of the patients who received olokizumab. Antibodies against olokizumab were detected in 3.8% of the patients receiving the drug every 2 weeks and in 5.1% of those receiving it every 4 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving maintenance methotrexate, olokizumab was superior to placebo and noninferior to adalimumab in producing an ACR20 response at 12 weeks. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of olokizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Supported by R-Pharm; CREDO2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02760407.).

Olokizumab plus methotrexate: safety and efficacy over 106 weeks of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To report long-term safety and tolerability of olokizumab (OKZ) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in subjects with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), using pooled data from three randomised clinical trials (RCT) followed by open-label extension (OLE) study. METHODS: Cumulative data from three phase 3 core trials and their OLE were analysed. Safety variables assessed included treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), AEs of special interest and laboratory results. Efficacy assessments included ACR20/50/70 responses, Disease Activity Score 28 (C-reactive protein) <3.2, CDAI remission and low disease activity (LDA), SDAI remission and LDA, HAQ-DI decrease of 0.22 unit and Boolean 2.0 remission. RESULTS: A total of 2304 patients received OKZ in combination with MTX either once every 2 weeks or once every 4 weeks. Event rates per 100 patient-years in OKZ every 2 weeks and OKZ every 4 weeks, respectively, were 9.57 and 9.13 for SAEs; 2.95 and 2.34 for serious infections; 0.09 and 0.05 for gastrointestinal perforations; 0.58 and 0.83 for major adverse cardiovascular events; and 0.45 and 0.50 for malignancies. No increase in the rate of any AE was observed over 106 weeks of treatment. The evaluation of laboratory variables demonstrated the expected changes, like neutropenia, elevation of liver enzymes and blood lipids. Clinical response rates remained stable during the OLE. CONCLUSION: The long-term safety and tolerability of OKZ in combination with MTX remained stable. The efficacy of OKZ was maintained through week 106. These findings support OKZ as a treatment option for patients with active RA.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03980483, NCT03970837.

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus sarilumab or placebo in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to targeted therapies: a phase III randomised trial (contRAst 3).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic (cs) and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and/or Janus kinase inhibitors. METHODS: ContRAst 3 was a 24-week, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Patients received subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly), subcutaneous sarilumab (200 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo for 12 weeks, in addition to csDMARDs. Patients receiving placebo were switched to active interventions at week 12 and treatment continued to week 24. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology ≥20% response (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: Overall, 549 patients received treatment. At week 12, there was no significant difference in the proportion of ACR20 responders with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg versus placebo (45% (p=0.2868) and 51% (p=0.0596) vs 38%, respectively). There were no significant differences in Clinical Disease Activity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, pain Visual Analogue Scale or Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scores with otilimab versus placebo at week 12. Sarilumab demonstrated superiority to otilimab in ACR20 response and secondary end points. The incidence of adverse or serious adverse events was similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Otilimab demonstrated an acceptable safety profile but failed to achieve the primary end point of ACR20 and improve secondary end points versus placebo or demonstrate non-inferiority to sarilumab in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04134728.

Consensus statement on blocking interleukin-6 receptor and interleukin-6 in inflammatory conditions: an update.

BACKGROUND: Targeting interleukin (IL)-6 has become a major therapeutic strategy in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory disease. Interference with the IL-6 pathway can be directed at the specific receptor using anti-IL-6Rα antibodies or by directly inhibiting the IL-6 cytokine. This paper is an update of a previous consensus document, based on most recent evidence and expert opinion, that aims to inform on the medical use of interfering with the IL-6 pathway. METHODS: A systematic literature research was performed that focused on IL-6-pathway inhibitors in inflammatory diseases. Evidence was put in context by a large group of international experts and patients in a subsequent consensus process. All were involved in formulating the consensus statements, and in the preparation of this document. RESULTS: The consensus process covered relevant aspects of dosing and populations for different indications of IL-6 pathway inhibitors that are approved across the world, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular-course and systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis, giant cell arteritis, Takayasu arteritis, adult-onset Still's disease, Castleman's disease, chimeric antigen receptor-T-cell-induced cytokine release syndrome, neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder and severe COVID-19. Also addressed were other clinical aspects of the use of IL-6 pathway inhibitors, including pretreatment screening, safety, contraindications and monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: The document provides a comprehensive consensus on the use of IL-6 inhibition to treat inflammatory disorders to inform healthcare professionals (including researchers), patients, administrators and payers.

Olokizumab, a monoclonal antibody against interleukin-6, in combination with methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis inadequately controlled by tumour necrosis factor inhibitor therapy: efficacy and safety results of a randomised controlled phase III study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of olokizumab (OKZ), a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 (IL-6) cytokine, versus placebo (PBO) in patients with prior inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IRs). METHODS: In this 24-week multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, the patients were randomised in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks (q2w), OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks (q4w) or PBO plus methotrexate. At week 16, the patients on PBO were randomised to receive either OKZ regime. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. Disease Activity Score 28-joint count C-reactive protein (DAS28 (CRP))<3.2 at week 12 was the major secondary efficacy endpoint. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed. RESULTS: In 368 patients randomised, ACR20 response rates were 60.9% in OKZ q2w, 59.6% in OKZ q4w and 40.6% in PBO (p<0.01 for both comparisons). Achievement of DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 was significantly different, favouring the OKZ arms. Improvements in efficacy and patient-reported outcomes were maintained throughout 24 weeks and were noted after week 16 in patients who switched from PBO.Dose-related treatment-emergent serious adverse events were 7% in OKZ q2w, 3.2% in OKZ q4w and none in the PBO group. CONCLUSIONS: Direct inhibition of IL-6 with OKZ resulted in significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis compared with PBO in TNF-IR patients with a similar safety profile as observed for monoclonal antibodies to the IL-6 receptor. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02760433.

Switching between Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib and adalimumab following insufficient response: efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and safety of immediate switch from upadacitinib to adalimumab, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with non-response or incomplete-response to the initial therapy. METHODS: SELECT-COMPARE randomised patients to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (n=651), placebo (n=651) or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (n=327). A treat-to-target study design was implemented, with blinded rescue occurring prior to week 26 for patients who did not achieve at least 20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts ('non-responders') and at week 26 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 ('incomplete-responders') without washout. RESULTS: A total of 39% (252/651) and 49% (159/327) of patients originally randomised to upadacitinib and adalimumab were rescued to the alternate therapy. In both switch groups (adalimumab to upadacitinib and vice versa) and in non-responders and incomplete-responders, improvements in disease activity were observed at 3 and 6 months following rescue. CDAI low disease activity was achieved by 36% and 47% of non-responders and 45% and 58% of incomplete-responders switched to adalimumab and upadacitinib, respectively, 6 months following switch. Overall, approximately 5% of rescued patients experienced worsening in disease activity at 6 months postswitch. The frequency of adverse events was similar between switch groups. CONCLUSIONS: These observations support a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients who fail to respond initially (or do not achieve sufficient response) are switched to a therapy with an alternate mechanism of action and experience improved outcomes. No new safety findings were observed despite immediate switch without washout.

Points to consider for the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases with Janus kinase inhibitors: a consensus statement.

OBJECTIVES: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety. METHODS: Existing data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration. RESULTS: The Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale. CONCLUSION: The consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management.

Ixekizumab treatment of biologic-naïve patients with active psoriatic arthritis: 3-year results from a phase III clinical trial (SPIRIT-P1).

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of up to 156 weeks of ixekizumab (an IL-17A antagonist) treatment in PsA patients. METHODS: In a phase III study, patients naïve to biologic treatment were randomized to placebo, adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks (ADA; active reference) or ixekizumab 80 mg every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) or every 4 weeks (IXEQ4W) after an initial dose of 160 mg. At week 24 (week 16 for inadequate responders), ADA (after 8-week washout) and placebo patients were re-randomized to IXEQ2W or IXEQ4W. Outcomes were evaluated using a modified non-responder imputation [linear extrapolation for radiographic progression (modified total Sharp score = 0)] during extended treatment until week 156. RESULTS: Of 417 patients, 381 entered the extension, and 243 of 381 (63.8%) completed the 156-week study. Incidence rates of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events, respectively, were 38.0 and 5.2 with IXEQ2W (n = 189) and 38.1 and 8.0 with IXEQ4W (n = 197). One death occurred (IXEQ4W). With IXEQ2W and IXEQ4W, respectively, the response rates persisted to week 156 as measured by the ACR response ≥20% (62.5 and 69.8%), ≥50% (56.1 and 51.8%) and ≥70% (43.8 and 33.4%), psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) 75 (69.1 and 63.5%), PASI 90 (64.5 and 51.2%) and PASI 100 (60.5 and 43.6%). Inhibition of radiographic progression also persisted to week 156 in 61% of IXEQ2W and 71% of IXEQ4W patients. CONCLUSION: In this 156-week study of ixekizumab, the safety profile remained consistent with previous reports, and improvements in signs and symptoms of PsA were observed, including persistent low rates of radiographic progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01695239, EudraCT 2011-002326-49.

Safety and effectiveness of upadacitinib or adalimumab plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over 48 weeks with switch to alternate therapy in patients with insufficient response.

BACKGROUND: In SELECT-COMPARE, a randomised double-blind study, upadacitinib 15 mg once daily was superior to placebo or adalimumab on background methotrexate (MTX) for treating rheumatoid arthritis signs and symptoms and inhibited radiographical progression versus placebo at 26 weeks. Here we report 48-week safety and efficacy in patients who continued their original medication or were rescued to the alternative medication for insufficient response. METHODS: Patients on MTX received upadacitinib 15 mg, placebo or adalimumab for 48 weeks. Rescue without washout, from placebo or adalimumab to upadacitinib or upadacitinib to adalimumab occurred if patients had <20% improvement in tender joint count (TJC) or swollen joint count (SJC) (weeks 14/18/22) or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 (week 26); remaining placebo patients were switched to upadacitinib at week 26. Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation), as well as separately for rescued patients (as observed). Treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years were summarised. RESULTS: Consistent with responses through week 26, from weeks 26 to 48, responses by randomised group including low disease activity, clinical remission and improvements in pain and function remained superior for upadacitinib versus adalimumab; radiographical progression remained lower for upadacitinib versus placebo (linear extrapolation). Although both switch groups responded, a higher proportion of patients rescued to upadacitinib from adalimumab achieved CDAI ≤10 at 6 months postswitch versus patients rescued from upadacitinib to adalimumab. Safety at week 48 was comparable to week 26. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib+MTX demonstrated superior clinical and functional responses versus adalimumab+MTX and maintained inhibition of structural damage versus placebo+MTX through week 48. Patients with an insufficient response to adalimumab or upadacitinib safely achieved clinically meaningful responses after switching to the alternative medication without washout.

Phase IIa, placebo-controlled, randomised study of lutikizumab, an anti-interleukin-1α and anti-interleukin-1ß dual variable domain immunoglobulin, in patients with erosive hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the anti-interleukin (IL)-1α/ß dual variable domain immunoglobulin lutikizumab (ABT-981) in erosive hand osteoarthritis (HOA). METHODS: Patients with ≥1 erosive and ≥3 tender and/or swollen hand joints were randomised to placebo or lutikizumab 200 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) pain subdomain score from baseline to 16 weeks. At baseline and week 26, subjects had bilateral hand radiographs and MRI of the hand with the greatest number of baseline tender and/or swollen joints. Continuous endpoints were assessed using analysis of covariance models, with treatment and country as main factors and baseline measurements as covariates. RESULTS: Of 132 randomised subjects, 1 received no study drug and 110 completed the study (placebo, 61/67 (91%); lutikizumab, 49/64 (77%)). AUSCAN pain was not different among subjects treated with lutikizumab versus placebo at week 16 (least squares mean difference, 1.5 (95% CI -1.9 to 5.0)). Other clinical and imaging endpoints were not different between lutikizumab and placebo. Lutikizumab significantly decreased serum high-sensitivity C reactive protein levels, IL-1α and IL-1ß levels, and blood neutrophils. Lutikizumab pharmacokinetics were consistent with phase I studies and not affected by antidrug antibodies. Injection site reactions and neutropaenia were more common in the lutikizumab group; discontinuations because of adverse events occurred more frequently with lutikizumab (4/64) versus placebo (1/67). CONCLUSION: Despite adequate blockade of IL-1, lutikizumab did not improve pain or imaging outcomes in erosive HOA compared with placebo.

Cutting Edge: Selective Oral ROCK2 Inhibitor Reduces Clinical Scores in Patients with Psoriasis Vulgaris and Normalizes Skin Pathology via Concurrent Regulation of IL-17 and IL-10.

Targeted inhibition of Rho-associated kinase (ROCK)2 downregulates the proinflammatory T cell response while increasing the regulatory arm of the immune response in animals models of autoimmunity and Th17-skewing human cell culture in vitro. In this study, we report that oral administration of a selective ROCK2 inhibitor, KD025, reduces psoriasis area and severity index scores by 50% from baseline in 46% of patients with psoriasis vulgaris, and it decreases epidermal thickness as well as T cell infiltration in the skin. We observed significant reductions of IL-17 and IL-23, but not IL-6 and TNF-α, whereas IL-10 levels were increased in peripheral blood of clinical responders after 12 wk of treatment with KD025. Collectively, these data demonstrate that an orally available selective ROCK2 inhibitor downregulates the Th17-driven autoimmune response and improved clinical symptoms in psoriatic patients via a defined molecular mechanism that involves concurrent modulation of cytokines without deleterious impact on the rest of the immune system.

Blood-Borne RNA Correlates with Disease Activity and IFN-Stimulated Gene Expression in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

The loss of tolerance and the presence of circulating autoantibodies directed against nuclear Ags is the hallmark of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Many of these Ags are complexed with short, noncoding RNAs, such as U1 and Y1. The amount of U1 and Y1 RNA complexed with SLE patient Abs and immune complexes was measured in a cross-section of 228 SLE patients to evaluate the role of these RNA molecules within the known biochemical framework of SLE. The study revealed that SLE patients had significantly elevated levels of circulating U1 and/or Y1 RNA compared with healthy volunteers. In addition, the blood-borne RNA molecules were correlated with SLE disease activity and increased expression of IFN-inducible genes. To our knowledge, this study provides the first systematic examination of the role of circulating RNA in a large group of SLE patients and provides an important link with IFN dysregulation.

Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in US and non-US rheumatoid arthritis patients: pooled analyses of phase II and III.

OBJECTIVES: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. This post-hoc pooled analysis assessed commonalities and differences in tofacitinib efficacy and safety for US versus rest of the world (ROW) populations. METHODS: Pooled phase (P) III data from patients receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID) or placebo were assessed for efficacy at Month 3 and for safety outcomes over 12 months. For adverse events of special interest, data on tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID or placebo were pooled from six PII and five PIII randomised studies. RESULTS: PIII data were available for 664 vs. 2447 and PII/PIII data for 943 vs. 3567 US vs. ROW patients, respectively. The US population had a higher proportion of Caucasians (81.5% vs. 54.4%), lower proportion of Asians (1.0% vs. 34.6%), and higher mean body weight (85.7 vs. 66.2 kg) and body mass index (31.5 vs. 25.6 kg/m2) compared with ROW. At Month 3, PIII efficacy was similar between US and ROW as assessed by ACR 20/50/70 response rates, remission rates (DAS 28-4[ESR]<2.6), and HAQ-DI scores. Diarrhoea, peripheral oedema, and upper respiratory tract infection occurred in >5% of PIII patients in the US population. Incidence rates for adverse events of special interest were similar between the US and ROW PII/PIII populations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the US achieved similar efficacy and safety with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID compared with patients in ROW.

Clinical efficacy and safety maintained up to 5 years in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tocilizumab in a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To report 5-year efficacy and safety in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with active disease treated with tocilizumab. METHODS: LITHE was a 2-year, randomised, placebo-controlled study of tocilizumab in RA patients (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00106535), with an additional 3-year, open-label extension. Patients were randomly assigned to tocilizumab (4 or 8 mg/kg IV) or placebo every 4 weeks + methotrexate. They could receive rescue with tocilizumab from week 16; after week 52, patients could switch to open-label tocilizumab 8 mg/kg. Radiographs were analysed by randomized treatment using the Genant-modified Total Sharp Score (GmTSS). Patients with at least baseline, week 104 and post-week 104 radiographs were included. Clinical and safety data were pooled for all patients who received ≥1 dose of tocilizumab; results are presented from the first tocilizumab dose. RESULTS: 1,149 patients were included with 4,380 patient-years of exposure; 34% received 5 years of treatment. Mean 5-year change in GmTSS revealed greater inhibition of radiographic progression in tocilizumab patients than placebo patients (1.34 vs. 3.02), with the greatest annualised progression rate in year 1. Overall, 53% of tocilizumab and 35% of placebo patients experienced no progression (GmTSS ≤0). Clinical benefit was maintained - determined by ACR response, DAS28-ESR <2.6, EULAR good/moderate response and Boolean remission - as was physical function. The safety profile over 5 years was similar to that over 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Over 5 years, tocilizumab + MTX inhibited radiographic progression and maintained improvements in signs and symptoms and physical function in MTX-inadequate responders with active disease; no new safety signals occurred.

Efficacy and safety of ascending methotrexate dose in combination with adalimumab: the randomised CONCERTO trial.

OBJECTIVE: CONCERTO was a randomised, double-blind, parallel-armed study of methotrexate (MTX) in combination with adalimumab to assess whether an increasing trend of efficacy and decreased safety exists when increasing MTX dose in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Early, biologic and MTX-naive RA patients (N=395) were evenly randomised to open-label adalimumab (40 mg every other week) plus weekly blinded 2.5, 5, 10 or 20 mg MTX for 26 weeks. Clinical, radiographic and functional outcomes were analysed using two-sided linear trend tests or one-way analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Statistically significant increasing trends were observed in the proportion of patients achieving the primary endpoint, 28-joint count disease activity score with C reactive protein (DAS28(CRP)) <3.2 (42.9%, 44.0%, 56.6% and 60.2% for 2.5, 5, 10 or 20 mg/week MTX, respectively), DAS28(CRP) <2.6 and American College of Rheumatology 50/70/90 responses with increasing doses of MTX in combination with adalimumab. No statistical differences in minimal clinically important differences in physical function were detected. Statistically significant trends for achieving low disease activity and remission were demonstrated with increasing MTX dose by validated clinical indices; differences comparing 10 and 20 mg MTX were minimal. Adalimumab serum concentrations increased with ascending dose up to 10 mg MTX. More patients experienced infectious adverse events with increasing MTX dose. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing doses of MTX in combination with adalimumab demonstrated a statistically significant trend in improved clinical outcomes that mimicked the adalimumab pharmacokinetic profile. In early RA patients initiating adalimumab combination therapy, efficacy of 10 and 20 mg/week MTX appeared equivalent.

Effects of golimumab, an anti-tumour necrosis factor-α human monoclonal antibody, on lipids and markers of inflammation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of golimumab, with or without methotrexate (MTX), on serum lipids and inflammatory markers of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in two phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (GO-BEFORE and GO-FORWARD). METHODS: Patients in GO-BEFORE (n=637, MTX-naïve) and GO-FORWARD (n=444, MTX-inadequate response) were randomised to placebo+MTX, golimumab 100 mg+placebo, golimumab 50 mg+MTX, or golimumab 100 mg+MTX. Subcutaneous injections (placebo and golimumab) were given every 4 weeks. Patients with an insufficient response entered early escape at week 16 (GO-FORWARD) or 28 (GO-BEFORE). All placebo+MTX patients in GO-FORWARD crossed over to golimumab 50 mg+MTX at week 24. Changes from baseline to weeks 14 (GO-FORWARD) or 24 (GO-BEFORE), and 52 in serum lipid levels and inflammatory markers were assessed. RESULTS: At week 14 in the GO-FORWARD trial, total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) increased in golimumab+MTX patients versus MTX-only patients (16.00 vs 2.00 (p<0.001); 3.00 vs 0.00 (p<0.05); 8.00 vs 4.00 (p<0.001); respectively); favourable changes in LDL subfractions were only observed in golimumab-treated patients. At week 24 in GO-BEFORE, TC and LDL increased, and LDL subfractions improved in the MTX-only and golimumab+MTX groups. Inflammatory markers of CVD risk improved significantly with golimumab+MTX versus placebo+MTX in both studies and were generally maintained through week 52. Atherogenic indices were generally stable. CONCLUSIONS: While TC and LDL levels increased mildly in RA patients receiving golimumab+MTX, atherogenic indices generally remained stable, favourable changes in LDL subfractions were observed, and inflammatory markers improved.

Sarilumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody against IL-6Rα in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate: efficacy and safety results from the randomised SARIL-RA-MOBILITY Part A trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate safety and efficacy of weekly (qw) and every other week (q2w) dosing of sarilumab, a fully human anti-interleukin 6 receptor α (anti-IL-6Rα) monoclonal antibody, for moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: In this dose-ranging study, patients (n=306) with active RA, despite methotrexate, were randomly assigned to placebo or one of five subcutaneous doses/regimens of sarilumab: 100 mg q2w, 150 mg q2w, 100 mg qw, 200 mg q2w, 150 mg qw for 12 weeks, plus methotrexate. The primary end point was ACR20 at Week 12. Secondary endpoints included ACR50, ACR70, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (C reactive protein). Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and efficacy in population subgroups were assessed. RESULTS: The proportion of patients achieving an ACR20 response compared with placebo was significantly higher for sarilumab 150 mg qw (72.0% vs 46.2%, multiplicity adjusted p=0.0203). Higher ACR20 responses were also attained with 150 mg q2w (67%; unadjusted (nominal) p=0.0363) and 200 mg q2w (65%; unadjusted p=0.0426) versus placebo. Sarilumab ≥150 mg q2w reduced C reactive protein, which did not return to baseline between dosing intervals. Infections were the most common adverse event; none were serious. Changes in laboratory values (neutropenia, transaminases and lipids) were consistent with reports with other IL-6Rα inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Sarilumab improved signs and symptoms of RA over 12 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe RA with a safety profile similar to reports with other IL-6 inhibitors. Sarilumab 150 mg and sarilumab 200 mg q2w had the most favourable efficacy, safety and dosing convenience and are being further evaluated in Phase III.