Novel therapies for graft versus host disease with a focus on cell therapies.

Graft versus host disease (GVHD) can occur at any period post allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation as a common clinical complication contributing to significant morbidity and mortality. Acute GVHD develops in approximately 30-50% of patients receiving transplants from matched related donors. High doses of steroids are used as first-line treatment, but are unsuccessful in around 40% of patients, resulting in the diagnosis of steroid-refractory acute GVHD. Consensus has yet to develop for the management of steroid-refractory acute GVHD, and prognosis at six months has been estimated at around 50%. Thus, it is critical to find effective treatments that increase survival of steroid-refractory acute GVHD. This article describes the currently known characteristics, pathophysiology, and treatments for GVHD, with a special focus on recent advances in cell therapies. In particular, a novel cell therapy using decidua stromal cells (DSCs) was recently shown to have promising results for acute GVHD, with improved effectiveness over previous treatments including mesenchymal stromal cells. At the Karolinska Institute, severe acute GVHD patients treated with placenta-derived DSCs supplemented with either 5% albumin or 10% AB plasma displayed a one-year survival rate of 76% and 47% respectively. Furthermore, patients with steroid-refractory acute GVHD, displayed survival rates of 73% with albumin and 31% with AB plasma-supplemented DSCs, compared to the 20% survival rate in the mesenchymal stromal cell control group. Adverse events and deaths were found to be attributed only to complications of hematopoietic stem cell transplant and GVHD, not to the study intervention. ASC Therapeutics, Inc, in collaboration with the Karolinska Institute, will soon initiate a phase 2 multicenter, open-label study to further assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous DSC treatment in sixty patients with Grade II-IV steroid-refractory acute GVHD. This novel cell therapy represents a promising treatment to combat the poor prognosis that steroid-refractory acute GVHD patients currently face.

Treatment with sotrovimab for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of high-risk kidney transplant recipients.

Background: Sotrovimab is a neutralizing monoclonal antibody (mAb) that seems to remain active against recent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants. The evidence on its use in kidney transplant (KT) recipients, however, is limited. Methods: We performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 82 KT patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection {coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]} treated with sotrovimab. Results: Median age was 63 years. Diabetes was present in 43.9% of patients, and obesity in 32.9% of patients; 48.8% of patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate under 30 mL/minute/1.73 m2. Additional anti-COVID-19 therapies were administered to 56 patients, especially intravenous steroids (65.9%). Sotrovimab was administered early (<5 days from the onset of the symptoms) in 46 patients (56%). Early-treated patients showed less likely progression to severe COVID-19 than those treated later, represented as a lower need for ventilator support (2.2% vs 36.1%; P < .001) or intensive care admission (2.2% vs 25%; P = .002) and COVID-19-related mortality (2.2% vs 16.7%; P = .020). In the multivariable analysis, controlling for baseline risk factors to severe COVID-19 in KT recipients, early use of sotrovimab remained as a protective factor for a composite outcome, including need for ventilator support, intensive care, and COVID-19-related mortality. No anaphylactic reactions, acute rejection episodes, impaired kidney function events, or non-kidney side effects related to sotrovimab were observed. Conclusions: Sotrovimab had an excellent safety profile, even in high-comorbidity patients and advanced chronic kidney disease stages. Earlier administration could prevent progression to severe disease, while clinical outcomes were poor in patients treated later. Larger controlled studies enrolling KT recipients are warranted to elucidate the true efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapies.

Challenges and opportunities when transitioning from in vivo gene replacement to in vivo CRISPR/Cas9 therapies - a spotlight on hemophilia.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, a few in vivo gene replacement therapies are commercially available, with many in clinical development for the treatment of some inherited monogenic diseases. These disorders arise from mutations in genes encoding essential proteins with a well understood biological function. Wide adoption of gene replacement therapies requires solid safety and efficacy profiles with demonstrable long-term durability and cost-benefit advantages vs standard therapies. AREAS COVERED: This expert review outlines the challenges and opportunities in treating hemophilia, including the progression from in vivo gene therapies toward in vivo gene editing, focusing on pre-clinical and emerging clinical data for gene editing and addressing the need for sustained and durable gene expression during hepatocyte proliferation when the liver is unable to maintain steady gene expression and protein production. EXPERT OPINION: In vivo gene editing in liver tissues may be able to rescue patients younger than 18 years who are not eligible for gene replacement therapies, with hemophilia as a prime example.

Hemophilia A gene therapy: current and next-generation approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Hemophilia comprises a group of X-linked hemorrhagic disorders that result from a deficiency of coagulation factors. The disorder affects mainly males and leads to chronic pain, joint deformity, reduced mobility, and increased mortality. Current therapies require frequent administration of replacement clotting factors, but the emergence of alloantibodies (inhibitors) diminishes their efficacy. New therapies are being developed to produce the deficient clotting factors and prevent the emergence of inhibitors. AREAS COVERED: This article provides an update on the characteristics and disease pathophysiology of hemophilia A, as well as current treatments, with a special focus on ongoing clinical trials related to gene replacement therapies. EXPERT OPINION: Gene replacement therapies provide safe, durable, and stable transgene expression while avoiding the challenges of clotting factor replacement therapies in patients with hemophilia. Improving the specificity of the viral construct and decreasing the therapeutic dose are critical toward minimizing cellular stress, induction of the unfolded protein response, and the resulting loss of protein production in liver cells. Next-generation gene therapies incorporating chimeric DNA sequences in the transgene can increase clotting factor synthesis and secretion, and advance the efficacy, safety, and durability of gene replacement therapy for hemophilia A as well as other blood clotting disorders.

Discrepancy Between Multibiomarker Disease Activity and Clinical Disease Activity Scores in Patients With Persistently Active Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Responsive assessment of disease activity in patients who have rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is necessary to evaluate therapeutic efficacy and guide treatment. We compared the utility of the multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) score in the assessment of RA disease activity with that of the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) score and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) in a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repository corticotropin injection (RCI) in patients with persistently active RA. METHODS: Patients received 80 units of RCI twice weekly during a 12-week open-label period; those who experienced low disease activity at week 12 were randomly assigned to receive either 80 units of RCI or placebo twice weekly during a 12-week double-blind period. Changes in disease activity (measured by DAS28-ESR, CDAI, and MBDA scores) and correlations between MBDA scores and both DAS28-ESR and CDAI scores were assessed. RESULTS: Changes from baseline in DAS28-ESR and CDAI scores suggested that RCI therapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in disease activity, but improvements from baseline in MBDA scores were below the minimally important difference threshold. For the DAS28-ESR and CDAI, correlations with total MBDA and individual component scores were generally low (r ≤ 0.3) and occasionally moderate (r > 0.3 but r < 0.5). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study suggest overall MBDA scores are not sufficiently responsive for assessing RA disease activity after RCI therapy. These findings are consistent with those seen with other RA drugs and, although they are from a clinical trial, suggest the MBDA should not be a preferred disease activity measure in clinical practice.

Multibiomarker disease activity score and C-reactive protein in a cross-sectional observational study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis with and without concomitant fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between a multibiomarker disease activity (MBDA) score, CRP and clinical disease activity measures among RA patients with and without concomitant FM. METHODS: In an observational cohort of patients with established RA, we performed a cross-sectional analysis comparing MBDA scores with CRP by rank correlation and cross-classification. MBDA scores, CRP and clinical measures of disease activity were compared between patients with RA alone and RA with concomitant FM (RA and FM) by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: CRP was ⩽1.0 mg/dl for 184 of 198 patients (93%). MBDA scores correlated with CRP (r = 0.755, P < 0.001), but were often discordant, being moderate or high for 19%, 55% and 87% of patients with CRP ⩽0.1, 0.1 to ⩽0.3, or 0.3 to ⩽1.0 mg/dl, respectively. Among patients with CRP ⩽1.0 mg/dl, swollen joint count (SJC) increased linearly across levels of MBDA score, both with (P = 0.021) and without (P = 0.004) adjustment for CRP, whereas CRP was not associated with SJC. The 28-joint-DAS-CRP, other composite measures, and their non-joint-count component measures were significantly greater for patients with RA and FM (n = 25) versus RA alone (n = 173) (all P ⩽ 0.005). MBDA scores and CRP were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: MBDA scores frequently indicated RA disease activity when CRP did not. Neither one was significantly greater among patients with RA and FM versus RA alone. Thus, MBDA score may be a useful objective measure for identifying RA patients with active inflammation when CRP is low (⩽1.0 mg/dl), including RA patients with concomitant FM.

Brief report: enhancement of patient recruitment in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials using a multi-biomarker disease activity score as an inclusion criterion.

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical trials often exclude patients who have low C-reactive protein (CRP) levels, which slows enrollment into the trial. The purpose of this study was to determine whether high Multi-Biomarker Disease Activity (MBDA) scores (>44) in RA patients with low CRP levels (≤10 mg/liter) could be used as a complement to CRP levels >10 mg/liter to enhance patient recruitment without affecting clinical trial outcomes. METHODS: We evaluated patients from the Swedish Pharmacotherapy (SWEFOT) trial, which did not include any selection criteria for CRP levels. Clinical outcomes were assessed after 3 months of methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy in MTX-naive RA patients (n = 220) and after 3-10 months of add-on therapy in patients who were incomplete responders to MTX alone (MTX-IR) (n = 127). Radiographic outcomes were assessed at 1 year in all patients. Within each cohort, the outcomes were compared between patients with a CRP level of ≤10 mg/liter and an MBDA score of >44 at the start of the respective treatment interval versus those with a CRP level of >10 mg/liter. RESULTS: Patients with both a CRP level of ≤10 mg/liter and an MBDA score of >44 at baseline had clinical and radiographic outcomes that were comparable to those in patients with a CRP level of >10 mg/liter at baseline. This broadened definition of the inclusion criteria identified an additional 24% of patients in the MTX-naive cohort and 47% in the MTX-IR cohort. CONCLUSION: Patient recruitment into RA clinical trials may be substantially enhanced, without any decrease in clinical and radiographic outcomes, by using as an inclusion criterion "a CRP level of >10 mg/liter and/or an MBDA score of >44."

Cost-effectiveness of sequential therapy with tumor necrosis factor antagonists in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the comparative lifetime cost-effectiveness of sequenced therapy with tumor necrosis factor (TNF) antagonists as the initial therapeutic intervention for patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Because patients with RA switch regimens many times throughout the course of disease, sequenced therapeutic interventions were modeled, continuing until the last effective agent failed or death occurred. The model used published clinical outcomes from short-term, randomized controlled trials. Direct treatment costs and costs of lost productivity were modeled for each of 5 alternative treatment sequences. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are expressed as quality-adjusted lifeyears (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Treatment sequences that included TNF antagonists produced a greater number of QALY than conventional disease modifying antirheumatic drug regimens alone. The cost-effectiveness of sequenced therapy initiated with adalimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) extendedly dominated both infliximab-plus-MTX-initiated and etanercept sequences. The cost of adalimumab plus MTX per QALY was US $47,157 excluding productivity losses, and $19,663 including productivity losses. A supplementary sequence that incorporated adalimumab-plus-MTX-initiated first-line therapy followed by another TNF antagonist as second-line therapy was modeled; this sequence resulted in additional QALY gained and extendedly dominated all single-TNF strategies. CONCLUSION: Of the 3 single-TNF antagonist sequences, the adalimumab-plus-MTX-initiated sequence was cost-effective in producing the greatest number of QALY. Multiple TNF strategies, such as the supplementary sequence modeled in this analysis, may be cost-effective in producing even greater health gain.

Relative efficiencies of physician/assessor global estimates and patient questionnaire measures are similar to or greater than joint counts to distinguish adalimumab from control treatments in rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate relative efficiencies of the 7 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) Core Data Set measures to distinguish adalimumab from control treatments in 4 clinical trials. METHODS: Four adalimumab clinical trials were analyzed for arithmetic and percentage changes for each Core Data Set measure from baseline to endpoint: 3 assessor/physician measures -- swollen joints, tender joints, and global estimate; 1 laboratory test -- C-reactive protein; and 3 patient measures -- physical function, pain, and global estimate. Relative efficiencies of each measure to distinguish adalimumab from control group responses were assessed, with tender joint count as the referent measure. RESULTS: Relative efficiencies were in a similar range for physician/assessor, patient, and laboratory measures, with some variation between trials. Among physician/assessor measures, relative efficiencies for global estimates were greater than for swollen and tender joint counts in 8/8 comparisons. Among patient measures, relative efficiencies for global estimates were greater than for physical function and pain scores in at least 6/8 comparisons. Among all measures, relative efficiencies for patient global estimates were greater than for swollen joint counts in 5/8 comparisons, and for tender joint counts in 8/8 comparisons. CONCLUSION: Patient and physician/assessor measures distinguished adalimumab from control treatment groups in similar ranges. Among all measures, physician/assessor global estimate was most efficient, and tender joint count least efficient, in all 4 trials. This information suggests that while joint counts are the most specific measure to assess RA, their sensitivity to detect treatment effects in patients with RA is generally no greater, and usually less, than other measures.

HUMIRA pen: a novel autoinjection device for subcutaneous injection of the fully human monoclonal antibody adalimumab.

The HUMIRA (adalimumab) Pen is a novel, integrated, disposable autoinjection delivery system for the subcutaneous injection of adalimumab. Adalimumab is a biological disease modifier for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic debilitating diseases mediated by tumor necrosis factor. Sustaining long-term efficacy with a biological therapy is influenced by patient adherence to the therapeutic regimen, which is often affected by the route of drug administration. Self-administered injectables offer several advantages over intravenous injections (i.e., portability, convenience and flexible scheduling). In particular, patients with chronic, debilitating diseases may need a self-administered medication available in an easy-to-use and convenient delivery device that minimizes pain and facilitates adherence to therapy. The adalimumab Pen offers these benefits and recent evidence indicates that patients overwhelmingly prefer the adalimumab Pen to the prefilled syringe.

Clinical assessment of pain, tolerability, and preference of an autoinjection pen versus a prefilled syringe for patient self-administration of the fully human, monoclonal antibody adalimumab: the TOUCH trial.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab is a therapeutic monoclonal antibody for SC administration by 2 single-use injection devices providing bioequivalent amounts of adalimumab: a ready-to-use, prefilled syringe and an integrated, disposable delivery system, the autoinjection Pen. Although pens have been shown to be preferred over syringes by patients requiring long-term SC administration of medications, there are no data on preference and pain in the use of biologics in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess injection-site pain, tolerability, and patient preference of 2 delivery systems of adalimumab. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were enrolled in a Phase II, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, sequential trial. Patients self-administered a standard dose of adalimumab 40 mg SC every other week at each of 3 monitored clinical visits: visit 1 (syringe), visits 2 and 3 (Pen). At each visit, patients rated their pain on an 11-point scale (0 = none to 10 = pain as bad as it could be) immediately after injection and 15-30 minutes after injection and provided their impressions of and preferences for each delivery system. Safety events were recorded throughout the study and 70 days after final study dose. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled in the trial and completed all 3 visits (32 women, 20 men; mean [SD] age, 53.8 [12.1] years). Forty (76.9%) patients reported that the Pen was less painful than the syringe, 4 (7.7%) patients found the syringe to be less painful, and 8 (15.4%) patients had no preference. Patients had statistically significant reductions in injection-pain scores from visit 1 to visit 2 and from visit 1 to visit 3. No new safety signals or apparent differences regarding tolerability between the syringe and Pen were observed. In addition, 46 (88.5%) patients preferred the Pen, 3 (5.8%) preferred the syringe, and 3 (5.8%) had no preference. Overall, patients evaluated the Pen as easier to use (94.2%), more convenient (92.3%), requiring less time to inject (82.7%), and safer (88.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients experienced less pain self-administering adalimumab via the Pen and preferred it versus the syringe. Further, patients perceived the Pen to be easier to use and more convenient. Both delivery systems were generally well tolerated.

An index of patient reported outcomes (PRO-Index) discriminates effectively between active and control treatment in 4 clinical trials of adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze 2 indices composed of the 3 patient reported outcomes (PRO) in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Core Data Set--physical function, pain, and global estimate--without joint count or laboratory data, for capacities to distinguish active from control treatments in 4 pivotal clinical trials. METHODS: Data from 4 clinical trials involving adalimumab, in combination with methotrexate or other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) or as monotherapy, versus control treatment were made available to analyze properties of various indices. A categorical PRO-Index M was defined as "majority" improvement in 2 of the 3 PRO measures at 20%, 50%, and 70% levels; results were evaluated to analyze agreement with ACR20, ACR50, ACR70 responses and an "all Core Data Set measures" index based on 4 of the 7 measures having such levels of improvement. A continuous PRO-Index C was defined as the median or 2nd highest of 3 percentage differences from baseline to endpoint; results were evaluated to analyze agreement with a continuous ACR-N, "all Core Data Set measures" index, and Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28). RESULTS: All indices distinguished active versus control treatment at similar levels, including PRO-Index M versus ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70 responses, and PRO-Index C versus DAS28. CONCLUSION: PRO indices based only on patient questionnaire data, without joint counts or laboratory tests, may be useful quantitative measures of therapeutic efficacy for use in standard rheumatology clinical care.