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.

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

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of olokizumab (OKZ) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite treatment with methotrexate (MTX). METHODS: In this 24-week multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, patients were randomised 1:1:1 to receive subcutaneously administered OKZ 64 mg once every 2 weeks, OKZ 64 mg once every 4 weeks, or placebo plus MTX. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. The secondary efficacy endpoints included percentage of subjects achieving Disease Activity Score 28-joint count based on C reactive protein <3.2, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index at week 12, ACR50 response and Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤2.8 at week 24. Safety and immunogenicity were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 428 patients were randomised. ACR20 responses were more frequent with OKZ every 2 weeks (63.6%) and OKZ every 4 weeks (70.4%) than placebo (25.9%) (p<0.0001 for both comparisons). There were significant differences in all secondary efficacy endpoints between OKZ-treated arms and placebo. Treatment-emergent serious adverse events (TESAEs) were reported by more patients in the OKZ groups compared with placebo. Infections were the most common TESAEs. No subjects developed neutralising antidrug antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with OKZ was associated with significant improvement in signs, symptoms and physical function of rheumatoid arthritis without discernible differences between the two regimens. Safety was as expected for this class of agents. Low immunogenicity was observed. Trial registration number NCT02760368.

Integrated population pharmacokinetics of etanercept in healthy subjects and in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Etanercept pharmacokinetics in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), and psoriasis were assessed separately with distinct models using population pharmacokinetics methods of limited precision. The different model structures and associated significant covariates identified by these earlier methods made it difficult to compare etanercept pharmacokinetics among disease groups. This integrated analysis aimed to establish a framework to evaluate previously established population pharmacokinetic models of etanercept, and to identify consistent and important demographic and disease factors that affected etanercept pharmacokinetics in a diverse population of healthy subjects and patients with RA and AS. In this integrated analysis, cumulative rich and sparse etanercept concentration data from 53 healthy volunteers, 212 patients with RA, and 346 patients with AS were examined and compared using nonlinear mixed effect methodology implemented the in NONMEM VI software package. A more precise estimation method (FOCEi) was employed and compared with the first-order method in population pharmacokinetics model building and evaluation. The integrated analysis found that an optimal population pharmacokinetics model with a 2-compartment structure adequately characterized etanercept pharmacokinetics in all subject groups. Health status or disease type did not significantly affect etanercept pharmacokinetics. In adult patients with RA and AS, age and body weight do not significantly affect etanercept pharmacokinetics.

Treatment of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis with etanercept: an exploratory, placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: An efficacious medical therapy for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) remains elusive. OBJECTIVES: To explore the efficacy and safety of etanercept in the treatment of IPF. METHODS: This was a randomized, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter exploratory trial in subjects with clinically progressive IPF. Primary endpoints included changes in the percentage of predicted FVC and lung diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide corrected for hemoglobin (Dl(CO(Hb))) and change in the alveolar to arterial oxygen pressure difference P(a-a)(O(2)) at rest from baseline over 48 weeks. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-eight subjects received subcutaneous etanercept (25 mg) or placebo twice weekly as their sole treatment for IPF. No differences in baseline demographics and disease status were detected between treatment groups; the mean time from first diagnosis was 13.6 months and mean FVC was 63.9% of predicted. At 48 weeks, no significant differences in efficacy endpoints were observed between the groups. A nonsignificant reduction in disease progression was seen in several physiologic, functional, and quality-of-life endpoints among subjects receiving etanercept. There was no difference in adverse events between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study in patients with clinically progressive IPF, etanercept was well tolerated. Although there were no differences in the predefined endpoints, a decreased rate of disease progression was observed on several measures. Further evaluation of TNF antagonists in the treatment of IPF may be warranted. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00063869).

Disconnect between inflammation and joint destruction after treatment with etanercept plus methotrexate: results from the trial of etanercept and methotrexate with radiographic and patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between disease activity and radiographic progression of joint destruction in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with methotrexate (MTX), those treated with etanercept, and those treated with the combination of MTX plus etanercept. METHODS: Baseline, 12-month, and 24-month data from the Trial of Etanercept and Methotrexate with Radiographic and Patient Outcomes database were analyzed. The dependent variable was the 1-year change in the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score (Sharp score); therefore, 2 interval changes per patient were available. Interval change in the Sharp score was modeled by time (years), treatment, disease activity, and the interaction (disease activity x treatment). Disease activity was reflected by the time-averaged Disease Activity Score (taDAS) and the time-averaged C-reactive protein (taCRP) level, which were calculated per 1-year interval. Generalized mixed linear modeling (GMLM) was used to adjust for within-patient correlation. RESULTS: GMLM confirmed a significant interaction between treatment and the taCRP level and taDAS with respect to the change in Sharp score (P = 0.012 and P = 0.03, respectively). In patients treated with MTX alone, radiographic progression increased with an increasing taCRP level or taDAS, although progression rates were low in patients whose disease was in remission and in those with low-to-moderate disease activity. This relationship was less clear in patients treated with etanercept and was absent in those who received combination therapy. CONCLUSION: Combination therapy with MTX plus etanercept uncouples the classic relationship between disease activity and radiographic progression in patients with RA.

Comparison of etanercept and methotrexate, alone and combined, in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: two-year clinical and radiographic results from the TEMPO study, a double-blind, randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, including radiographic changes, and safety of etanercept and methotrexate (MTX), used in combination and alone, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in whom previous treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug other than MTX had failed. METHODS: Patients with RA were treated with etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly), oral MTX (up to 20 mg weekly), or combination therapy with etanercept plus MTX through a second year, in a double-blinded manner. Clinical response was assessed using American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria and the Disease Activity Score (DAS), in a modified intent-to-treat analysis with the last observation carried forward (LOCF) and in a population of completers. Radiographs of the hands, wrists, and forefeet were scored for erosions and joint space narrowing at annual intervals. RESULTS: A total of 503 of 686 patients continued into year 2 of the study. During the 2 years, significantly fewer patients receiving combination therapy withdrew from the study (29% of the combination therapy group, 39% of the etanercept group, and 48% of the MTX group). Both the LOCF and the completer analyses yielded similar results. The ACR 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70 responses and the remission rates (based on a DAS of <1.6) were significantly higher with combination therapy than with either monotherapy (P<0.01). Similarly, improvement in disability (based on the Health Assessment Questionnaire) was greater with combination therapy (P<0.01). The combination therapy group showed significantly less radiographic progression than did either group receiving monotherapy (P<0.05); moreover, radiographic progression was significantly lower in the etanercept group compared with the MTX group (P<0.05). For the second consecutive year, overall disease progression in the combination therapy group was negative, with the 95% confidence interval less than zero. Adverse events were similar in the 3 treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Etanercept in combination with MTX reduced disease activity, slowed radiographic progression, and improved function more effectively than did either monotherapy over a 2-year period. No increase in toxicity was associated with combination treatment with etanercept plus MTX.

Presentation and analysis of data on radiographic outcome in clinical trials: experience from the TEMPO study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate different methods of presentation and analysis of radiographic data in a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) randomized controlled trial. METHODS: A double-blind randomized controlled trial including 682 patients with active RA who were treated with methotrexate, etanercept, or a combination of the 2 drugs was used for this study. Probability plots of the change from baseline to year 1 were produced to visualize progression, and were compared with usual descriptive statistics. The primary analysis of the trial (based on annualized actual mean change from baseline in total Sharp score at 1 year, using linear imputation) was challenged using various ways of handling missing information with alternative imputation methods, and by various statistical analyses including analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and mixed model analysis on both raw and log-transformed data. RESULTS: Probability plots provided detailed insight into the differentiated treatment effects between the 3 arms of this study. As adjuncts to formal hypothesis testing, these plots were more useful for presenting data than were summary descriptive statistics or use of preset cutoff points to define lack of progression. Additional analyses presented here support the results obtained with the per-protocol analysis that showed an advantage of the combination treatment compared with the monotherapy arms and for etanercept versus methotrexate alone. Various ways of handling missing information confirmed the robustness of the results. In addition, both ANCOVA and mixed model analyses on raw and on log-transformed data produced similar results. CONCLUSION: We suggest a panel of alternative analysis methods and alternative ways of handling missing information to verify that the radiographic results reported in an randomized controlled trial are not influenced by technical factors, such as interpolation, handling of missing data, and choice of statistical tests.

Unaltered etanercept pharmacokinetics with concurrent methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential impact of concurrent weekly oral methotrexate administration on the pharmacokinetics of etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a phase 3B trial. As part of a double-blind randomized trial of 682 patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly), methotrexate (weekly oral dose, median weekly dose: 20 mg), or etanercept (25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly) plus methotrexate (weekly oral dose, median weekly dose: 20 mg), serum etanercept concentrations were measured in a subset of patients. Serum samples for 98 randomly selected patients (48 receiving etanercept-alone treatment, 50 receiving etanercept plus methotrexate combination treatment) were analyzed to assess the pharmacokinetics of etanercept. A single blood sample was drawn from each patient at baseline and at the week 24 visit. Given the variable sampling time for patients in both groups, a population pharmacokinetic analysis using NONMEM was conducted for etanercept. A final covariate population pharmacokinetic model was constructed based on previously obtained etanercept data from both healthy subjects (n = 53) and patients with RA (n = 212) in 10 prior clinical trials. The predictive performance of the final model was assessed by both bootstrap and data-splitting validation approaches. The final model was then used to estimate Bayesian pharmacokinetic parameters for the patients in both treatments in the current trial. The potential effect of the concurrent administration of methotrexate on the pharmacokinetics of etanercept was examined by comparing the clearance values between 2 treatments using statistical criteria. A population 2-compartment model with first-order elimination from the central compartment and with either zero-order (intravenous administration) or first-order (subcutaneous administration) input was selected based on the data from the prior 10 etanercept clinical studies. The following pharmacokinetic parameters (typical value +/- standard error) were estimated: clearance (CL: 0.072 +/- 0.005 L/h), volume of distribution in the central compartment (V(c): 5.97 +/- 0.45 L), volume of distribution in the peripheral compartment (V(p): 2.05 +/- 0.32 L), intercompartment clearance (Q: 0.0645 +/- 0.0093 L/h), first-order absorption rate constant (k(a): 0.0282 +/- 0.0039 1/h), and absolute bioavailability for subcutaneous administration (F: 0.626 +/- 0.056). Interindividual variability of the pharmacokinetic parameters was quantified for CL (25.1%), V(c) (41.7%), k(a) (53.1%), and F (24.2%). Residual variability consisted of combined additive (11.4 ng/mL) and proportional error (49.9%). Both age (< 17 years) and body weight (< 60 kg) were found to be important covariates on CL. The results of both validation tests indicated the adequate predictive performance of the population model. Based on the bioequivalence criteria, the Bayesian-estimated clearance for patients receiving etanercept alone (mean: 0.070 L/h) was comparable to that for patients receiving a combination of etanercept and methotrexate (mean = 0.066 L/h). The pharmacokinetics of etanercept were not altered by the concurrent administration of methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, no etanercept dose adjustment is needed for patients taking concurrent methotrexate.

Therapeutic effect of the combination of etanercept and methotrexate compared with each treatment alone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Etanercept and methotrexate are effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis but no data exist on concurrent initiation or use of the combination compared with either drug alone. We aimed to assess combination treatment with etanercept and methotrexate versus the monotherapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomised, clinical efficacy, safety, and radiographic study, 686 patients with active rheumatoid arthritis were randomly allocated to treatment with etanercept 25 mg (subcutaneously twice a week), oral methotrexate (up to 20 mg every week), or the combination. Clinical response was assessed by criteria of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The primary efficacy endpoint was the numeric index of the ACR response (ACR-N) area under the curve (AUC) over the first 24 weeks. The primary radiographic endpoint was change from baseline to week 52 in total joint damage and was assessed with the modified Sharp score. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: Four patients did not receive any drug; thus 682 were studied. ACR-N AUC at 24 weeks was greater for the combination group compared with etanercept alone and methotrexate alone (18.3%-years [95% CI 17.1-19.6] vs 14.7%-years [13.5-16.0], p<0.0001, and 12.2%-years [11.0-13.4], p<0.0001; respectively). The mean difference in ACR-N AUC between combination and methotrexate alone was 6.1 (95% CI 4.5-7.8, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was 2.5 (0.8-4.2, p=0.0034). The combination was more efficacious than methotrexate or etanercept alone in retardation of joint damage (mean total Sharp score -0.54 [95% CI -1.00 to -0.07] vs 2.80 [1.08 to 4.51], p<0.0001, and 0.52 [-0.10 to 1.15], p=0.0006; respectively). The mean difference in total Sharp score between combination and methotrexate alone was -3.34 (95% CI -4.86 to -1.81, p<0.0001) and between etanercept and methotrexate was -27 (-3.81 to -0.74, p=0.0469). The number of patients reporting infections or adverse events was similar in all groups. INTERPRETATION: The combination of etanercept and methotrexate was significantly better in reduction of disease activity, improvement of functional disability, and retardation of radiographic progression compared with methotrexate or etanercept alone. These findings bring us closer to achievement of remission and repair of structural damage in rheumatoid arthritis.