Cedirogant in adults with psoriasis: a phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Dysregulated interleukin (IL)-17/IL-23 signaling contributes to psoriasis pathogenesis. Cedirogant is an inverse agonist of retinoic acid-related orphan receptor gamma thymus (RORγt), a key transcription factor responsible for IL-17 synthesis and a regulator of the T helper 17 cell lineage program. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cedirogant to treat moderate-to-severe psoriasis. METHODS: In this phase 2b, multicenter, double-blind, 16-week study (NCT05044234), adults aged 18-65 years were randomized 1:1:1:1 to once-daily oral cedirogant 75 mg, 150 mg, 375 mg, or placebo. Assessments included ≥50%/75%/90%/100% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50/75/90/100), static Physician Global Assessment 0/1, Psoriasis Symptoms Scale 0, and improvements in itch, adverse events (AEs), pharmacokinetics, and IL-17A/F levels. Efficacy results based on observed cases were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Of 156 enrolled patients, most were male (70.5%); 39 patients were randomized to each treatment. Only 47 patients completed the study; the study was terminated early due to preclinical findings. At week 16, PASI 75 achievement rates (primary endpoint) were 28.6%, 7.7%, and 41.7% in the cedirogant 75 mg, 150 mg, and 375 mg groups, respectively, and 0% in the placebo group. AE rates were similar in the cedirogant 75 mg, 150 mg, and placebo groups and higher in the cedirogant 375-mg group; most AEs were mild or moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with psoriasis who received cedirogant showed PASI improvement and cedirogant was generally well tolerated. Results should be interpreted in the context of early study termination. Cedirogant development has been discontinued.

Efficacy of long-term risankizumab treatment for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: Subgroup analyses by baseline characteristics and psoriatic disease manifestations through 256 weeks (LIMMitless trial).

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an inflammatory skin disease that impacts a heterogeneous group of patients and can have multiple clinical manifestations. Risankizumab is approved for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of risankizumab according to baseline patient characteristics, and for the treatment of high-impact disease manifestations (nail, scalp and palmoplantar psoriasis), through 256 weeks of continuous treatment in the phase 3 LIMMitless study. METHODS: This subgroup analysis evaluated pooled data from patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who were randomized to risankizumab 150 mg during two double-blind, phase 3, 52-week base studies (UltIMMa-1/2; NCT02684370/NCT02684357) and were enrolled in the phase 3 LIMMitless open-label extension study (NCT03047395). Subgroup assessments included the proportion of patients who achieved ≥90%/100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90/100). Among patients with nail, scalp and/or palmoplantar psoriasis in addition to skin psoriasis, assessments included changes from baseline in and resolution of these three psoriatic manifestations. RESULTS: Overall, a numerically similar proportion of patients (N = 525) achieved PASI 90/100 through Week 256, regardless of their baseline age, sex, body mass index, weight, PASI or psoriatic arthritis status. Patients with nail, scalp and/or palmoplantar psoriasis experienced substantial improvements in manifestation-specific indices (mean improvement from baseline to Week 256 of >81%, >94% and >97%, respectively); in patients with all three manifestations (N = 121), 44.6% achieved complete clearance of these manifestations at Week 256. CONCLUSIONS: Risankizumab demonstrated generally consistent efficacy through 256 weeks across patient subgroups and showed durable long-term efficacy for psoriatic disease manifestations.

Long-term safety and efficacy of risankizumab for the treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: Interim analysis of the LIMMitless open-label extension trial up to 5 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease often requiring long-term therapy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of risankizumab in patients with psoriasis. METHODS: LIMMitless is an ongoing phase 3, open-label extension study evaluating the long-term safety and efficacy of continuous risankizumab 150 mg every 12 weeks for adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis following multiple phase 2/3 base studies. This interim analysis assessed safety (ie, monitored treatment-emergent adverse events [TEAEs]) through 304 weeks. Efficacy assessments included determining the proportion of patients who achieved ≥90% or 100% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90/100), static Physician's Global Assessment of clear/almost clear (sPGA 0/1), and Dermatology Life Quality Index of no effect on patient's life (DLQI 0/1) through 256 weeks. RESULTS: Among 897 patients randomized to risankizumab in the base studies, 706 were still ongoing at data cutoff. Rates of TEAEs, TEAEs leading to discontinuation, and TEAEs of safety interest were low. At week 256, 85.1%/52.3% of patients achieved PASI 90/100, respectively, 85.8% achieved sPGA 0/1, and 76.4% achieved DLQI 0/1. LIMITATIONS: Open-label study with no placebo or active-comparator group. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term continuous risankizumab treatment for up to 5 years was well tolerated and demonstrated high and durable efficacy.

Comparison of risankizumab and apremilast for the treatment of adults with moderate plaque psoriasis eligible for systemic therapy: results from a randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded phase IV study (IMMpulse).

BACKGROUND: Treatment of psoriasis with risankizumab has demonstrated superior efficacy to other treatments, such as adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab. OBJECTIVES: This study compared the efficacy and safety of risankizumab and apremilast in adults with moderate plaque psoriasis eligible for systemic therapy. It also evaluated the efficacy and safety of switching to risankizumab vs. continuing apremilast in patients who did not achieve ≥ 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75 nonresponders) after 16 weeks of treatment with apremilast. METHODS: This 52-week, phase IV, multicentre, randomized, open-label, efficacy assessor-blinded study (NCT04908475) enrolled patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with a diagnosis of moderate chronic plaque psoriasis (≥ 6 months) and who were candidates for systemic therapy. The enrolled patients (randomized 1 : 2) received subcutaneous risankizumab (150 mg at weeks 0 and 4) or oral apremilast (30 mg twice daily). At week 16, all patients treated with apremilast were re-randomized (1 : 1) to risankizumab or apremilast, stratified by week-16 PASI 75 response. The co-primary outcomes in period A at week 16 were the achievement of ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) and static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) 0/1 with a two-grade or better improvement from baseline. At week 52, the primary endpoint in period B was the achievement of PASI 90 in PASI 75 nonresponders with apremilast at week 16. Safety was monitored throughout the study. All patients who received one dose of treatment were included in the efficacy and safety analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, 118 and 234 patients were assigned to receive risankizumab and apremilast, respectively. At week 16, PASI 90 was achieved by 55.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 47.0-64.9] and 5.1% (95% CI 2.3-8.0), and sPGA 0/1 by 75.4% (95% CI 67.7-83.2) and 18.4% (95% CI 13.4-23.3), respectively. In period B, among PASI 75 nonresponders with apremilast at week 16, 83 switched to risankizumab and 78 continued apremilast. At week 52, 72.3% (95% CI 62.7-81.9) who switched to risankizumab achieved PASI 90 vs. 2.6% (95% CI 0.0-6.1) who continued apremilast. The most frequent adverse events (reported in ≥ 5%) in risankizumab-treated patients were COVID-19 infection and nasopharyngitis. Diarrhoea, nausea and headache were most frequent among apremilast-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with moderate psoriasis, treatment with risankizumab demonstrated superior efficacy to those treated with apremilast, including those who did not benefit from prior treatment with apremilast. The safety profile of risankizumab was similar to prior studies, and no new safety signals were identified. These results show that, compared with apremilast, risankizumab treatment can significantly improve clinical outcomes in systemic-eligible patients with moderate psoriasis.

Efficacy and safety of switching from dupilumab to upadacitinib versus continuous upadacitinib in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from an open-label extension of the phase 3, randomized, controlled trial (Heads Up).

BACKGROUND: Characterization of upadacitinib use and switching from dupilumab to upadacitinib among patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) is needed. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of continuous upadacitinib 30 mg and switching to upadacitinib after 24 weeks of dupilumab. METHODS: Adults who completed the phase 3b clinical trial of oral upadacitinib 30 mg vs injectable dupilumab 300 mg (Heads Up) and entered a 52-week open-label extension (OLE) (NCT04195698) were included. All patients received 30-mg upadacitinib during the open-label period. We report results of a prespecified interim OLE 16-week analysis. RESULTS: Patients (n = 239) continuing upadacitinib maintained high levels of skin and itch response. Patients (n = 245) switching from dupilumab experienced additional incremental improvements in clinical responses within 4 weeks of starting upadacitinib. Most patients who did not achieve adequate clinical responses with dupilumab did so with upadacitinib. The safety profile of upadacitinib up to 40 weeks (week 16 of OLE) was consistent with previous phase 3 AD studies, with no new safety risks observed. LIMITATIONS: Open-label study design. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical responses are maintained with continuous upadacitinib through 40 weeks and patients regardless of prior dupilumab response experienced improved outcomes when switched to upadacitinib. No new safety risks were observed.

Risankizumab for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis in the Russian Federation.

INTRODUCTION: Risankizumab has demonstrated efficacy and safety in phase 3 studies in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. This randomized clinical trial assessed the efficacy and safety of risankizumab in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in the Russian Federation. METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis were randomized 4:1 to 16 weeks of double-blind treatment with risankizumab 150 mg or placebo (period A; dosing at baseline and week 4) followed by an open-label extension (period B) during which all patients received risankizumab 150 mg at weeks 16, 28, and 40 and were followed up to week 52. The primary study endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥ 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) at week 16, and secondary endpoints included Static Physician's Global Assessment scores and the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Treatment-emergent adverse events were monitored throughout the two study periods. RESULTS: Of the 50 patients who entered period A, 41 were randomized to receive risankizumab and 9 to receive placebo. Forty-eight patients entered period B, and 47 completed the study. A significantly larger proportion of risankizumab-treated patients achieved PASI 90 at week 16 compared with placebo-treated patients [response rate difference: 38.8% (95% CI 7.8-69.7%; P = 0.035)]. Consistently higher proportions of risankizumab-treated patients achieved secondary endpoints compared with the placebo-treated patients. Safety profiles were similar between the treatment groups, and no patients discontinued the study drug owing to adverse events. CONCLUSION: Risankizumab was efficacious and well tolerated in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in the Russian Federation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03518047.

Switching to risankizumab from ustekinumab or adalimumab in plaque psoriasis patients improves PASI and DLQI outcomes for sub-optimal responders.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is often treated with biologic therapies. While many patients see improvement in their symptoms with treatment, some achieve only partial success. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis we assess Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) results from patients who switched to RZB due to suboptimal results that originally received ADA (N = 53, IMMvent NCT02694523) or UST (N = 172, UltIMMa-1 [NCT02684370], UltIMMa-2 [NCT02684357]). RESULTS: For patients originally treated with ADA, after three doses of RZB, 83.3% of PASI 50 to <75 patients improved to PASI ≥75 and for PASI 75 to <90 patients, 77.1% improved to PASI ≥90. For patients originally treated with UST, after 7 doses of RZB, 86.8% of PASI <75 patients improved to PASI ≥75 and 75.5% of PASI 75 to ≤90 patients improved to PASI ≥90. No patients demonstrated worsening from their initial PASI group after switching. There were no significant safety events associated with switching patients to RZB without a washout period. CONCLUSION: For patients with an inadequate or incomplete response to UST or ADA, switching to RZB improved PASI scores and DLQI for patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with no significant safety risks.

Efficacy of Risankizumab versus Secukinumab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Subgroup Analysis from the IMMerge Study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis who experience poor clinical outcomes, including patients with obesity or prior treatment, need improved treatment options. Risankizumab specifically inhibits interleukin 23 and has demonstrated superior efficacy in active-comparator studies in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. We compared the efficacy of risankizumab with that of secukinumab across patient subgroups. METHODS: Subgroup analyses using data from the phase 3 IMMerge study (NCT03478787) were performed. Efficacy in adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with risankizumab 150 mg and secukinumab 300 mg was assessed as the proportion of patients who achieved ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI 90) at week 52 across demographics and disease characteristics. Post hoc analyses evaluated the proportion of patients who achieved PASI 90 and the least-squares mean percent PASI improvement from baseline at week 52 by body weight and body mass index (BMI), PASI 90 by prior treatment, and clinical response [PASI 90, PASI 100, and/or static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score of clear (0) or almost clear (1)] at week 16 and maintained particular response at week 52. Logistic regression analyses examined the effect of covariates (age, sex, BMI, baseline PASI, treatment) and potential interactions on PASI 90 at week 52. RESULTS: More patients who received risankizumab (n = 164) compared with secukinumab (n = 163) achieved PASI 90 at week 52, regardless of demographics and disease characteristics (BMI, prior treatment, disease duration, and maintenance of clinical response at week 52). Improvements in PASI were greater in patients taking risankizumab than those taking secukinumab, regardless of weight or BMI. Results from logistic regression analysis showed treatment type had a significant impact on PASI 90 (risankizumab versus secukinumab, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Risankizumab showed consistently greater efficacy compared with secukinumab across different patient subgroups, and this was maintained through 52 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier; NCT03478787.

Patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis are often unable to achieve treatment success with currently available biologic therapies when they have other conditions, such as obesity, or have previous biologic therapy exposure and/or failure. We studied patients in the IMMerge phase 3 clinical trial (NCT03478787) to assess the efficacy of risankizumab compared with secukinumab for the treatment of plaque psoriasis and to determine risankizumab's ability to remain effective after 52 weeks of administration. In our analysis, we looked across patient subgroups including patient body weight, body mass index, previous use of biologic therapies, length of time patients had been living with their disease, and the durability of risankizumab efficacy at 52 weeks. Results from our analysis showed that patients had greater success with risankizumab compared with secukinumab in treating their plaque psoriasis, despite their age, sex, race, and disease characteristics, and that risankizumab remained effective in treating plaque psoriasis at week 52. Previously reported safety results from the IMMerge clinical trial showed that there were no new concerns regarding side effects for either risankizumab or secukinumab. Overall, these results support the use of risankizumab to treat patients, including those who have other conditions or may not have had success with other therapies in treating their plaque psoriasis.

Performance and Predictors of Minimal Disease Activity Response in Patients With Peripheral Spondyloarthritis Treated With Adalimumab.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the concurrent validity and discrimination of criteria for modified minimal disease activity (MDA) in peripheral spondyloarthritis (SpA) following filter principles of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) and to determine predictors of modified MDA response. METHODS: Four modified MDA versions were derived in the ABILITY-2 study using the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) enthesitis index or the Leeds Enthesitis Index (LEI) while excluding psoriasis. To assess concurrent validity, modified MDA versions were correlated with Peripheral Spondyloarthritis Response Criteria (PSpARC) remission, Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score showing inactive disease (ASDAS ID), and physician global assessment of disease activity. Treatment discrimination was assessed between adalimumab and placebo at week 12. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine baseline predictors of long-term modified MDA responses and sustained modified MDA. RESULTS: The 4 modified MDA versions showed a stronger positive correlation with PSpARC remission (rtet > 0.95) versus ASDAS ID (rtet > 0.75) at week 12 and years 1-3 and were able to show discrimination (P < 0.001). Responsiveness was shown at week 12; significantly more patients receiving adalimumab versus placebo achieved all 4 versions of modified MDA. Approximately 40-60% of patients treated with adalimumab achieved modified MDA using the LEI or SPARCC enthesitis index at years 1-3. Achieving modified MDA response after 12 weeks of adalimumab treatment was a robust positive predictor of attaining long-term modified MDA through 3 years (odds ratio [OR] 11.38-27.13 for modified MDA using the LEI; OR 17.98-37.85 for modified MDA using the SPARCC enthesitis index). CONCLUSION: All 4 versions of modified MDA showed concurrent validity and discriminated well between adalimumab and placebo treatment groups. Early modified MDA response is a more consistent predictor of long-term modified MDA achievement than baseline characteristics. The 5 of 6 versions of modified MDA could be an appropriate treatment target in patients with peripheral SpA.

Efficacy and Safety of Upadacitinib vs Dupilumab in Adults With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, recurrent, inflammatory skin disease with an unmet need for treatments that provide rapid and high levels of skin clearance and itch improvement. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib vs dupilumab in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Heads Up was a 24-week, head-to-head, phase 3b, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, double-dummy, active-controlled clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of upadacitinib with dupilumab among 692 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were candidates for systemic therapy. The study was conducted from February 21, 2019, to December 9, 2020, at 129 centers located in 22 countries across Europe, North and South America, Oceania, and the Asia-Pacific region. Efficacy analyses were conducted in the intent-to-treat population. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 and treated with oral upadacitinib, 30 mg once daily, or subcutaneous dupilumab, 300 mg every other week. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was achievement of 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI75) at week 16. Secondary end points were percentage change from baseline in the Worst Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) (weekly average), proportion of patients achieving EASI100 and EASI90 at week 16, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS at week 4, proportion of patients achieving EASI75 at week 2, percentage change from baseline in Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) at week 1, and Worst Pruritus NRS (weekly average) improvement of 4 points or more at week 16. End points at week 24 included EASI75, EASI90, EASI100, and improvement of 4 points or more in Worst Pruritus NRS from baseline (weekly average). Safety was assessed as treatment-emergent adverse events in all patients receiving 1 or more dose of either drug. RESULTS: Of 924 patients screened, 348 (183 men [52.6%]; mean [SD] age, 36.6 [14.6] years) were randomized to receive upadacitinib and 344 were randomized to receive dupilumab (194 men [56.4%]; mean [SD] age, 36.9 [14.1] years); demographic and disease characteristics were balanced among treatment groups. At week 16, 247 patients receiving upadacitinib (71.0%) and 210 patients receiving dupilumab (61.1%) achieved EASI75 (P = .006). All ranked secondary end points also demonstrated the superiority of upadacitinib vs dupilumab, including improvement in Worst Pruritus NRS as early as week 1 (mean [SE], 31.4% [1.7%] vs 8.8% [1.8%]; P < .001), achievement of EASI75 as early as week 2 (152 [43.7%] vs 60 [17.4%]; P < .001), and achievement of EASI100 at week 16 (97 [27.9%] vs 26 [7.6%]; P < .001). Rates of serious infection, eczema herpeticum, herpes zoster, and laboratory-related adverse events were higher for patients who received upadacitinib, whereas rates of conjunctivitis and injection-site reactions were higher for patients who received dupilumab. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During 16 weeks of treatment, upadacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy vs dupilumab in patients with moderate-to-severe AD, with no new safety signals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03738397.

Efficacy and Safety of Continuous Risankizumab Therapy vs Treatment Withdrawal in Patients With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Risankizumab selectively inhibits interleukin 23, a cytokine that contributes to psoriatic inflammation. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of risankizumab vs placebo and continuous treatment vs withdrawal in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multinational, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted from March 6, 2016, to July 26, 2018. A total of 507 eligible patients had stable moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis for 6 months or longer, body surface area involvement greater than or equal to 10%, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) greater than or equal to 12, and a static Physician's Global Assessment (sPGA) score greater than or equal to 3. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted. Interventions: Patients were randomized (4:1, interactive response technology) to risankizumab, 150 mg, subcutaneously, or placebo at weeks 0 and 4 (part A1). All patients received risankizumab at week 16. At week 28, patients randomized to risankizumab who achieved an sPGA score of 0/1 were rerandomized 1:2 to risankizumab or placebo every 12 weeks (part B). Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary end points for the part A1 phase included proportions of patients achieving greater than or equal to 90% improvement in PASI (PASI 90) and sPGA score of 0/1 at week 16. The PASI measures severity of erythema, infiltration, and desquamation weighted by area of skin involvement over the head, trunk, upper extremities, and lower extremities; scores range from 0 (no disease) to 72 (maximal disease activity). The sPGA assesses average thickness, erythema, and scaling of all psoriatic lesions; scores range from 0 (clear) to 4 (severe), with 0/1 indicating clear or almost clear. Primary and secondary end points in part B included proportion of rerandomized patients achieving an sPGA score of 0/1 at week 52 (primary) and week 104 (secondary). Results: Of 563 patients screened, 507 were randomized to risankizumab (n = 407) or placebo (n = 100). Most patients were men (356 [70.2%]); median age was 51 years (interquartile range, 38-60 years). At week 16, 298 patients (73.2%) in the treatment group vs 2 patients (2.0%) receiving placebo achieved a PASI 90 response, and 340 patients (83.5%) receiving risankizumab vs 7 patients (7.0%) receiving placebo achieved sPGA 0/1 scores (placebo-adjusted differences: PASI 90: 70.8%; 95% CI, 65.7%-76.0%; sPGA 0/1: 76.5%; 95% CI, 70.4%-82.5%; P < .001 for both). At week 28, 336 responders were rerandomized to risankizumab (n = 111) or treatment withdrawal (n = 225). At week 52, the sPGA 0/1 score was achieved by 97 patients (87.4%) receiving risankizumab vs 138 patients (61.3%) receiving placebo. At week 104, the sPGA 0/1 score was achieved by 90 patients (81.1%) receiving risankizumab vs 16 patients (7.1%) receiving placebo (placebo-adjusted differences: week 52: 25.9%; 95% CI, 17.3%-34.6%; week 104: 73.9%; 95% CI, 66.0%-81.9%; P < .001 for both). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar between risankizumab (186 [45.7%]) and placebo (49 [49.0%]) in part A1 and remained stable over time. Conclusions and Relevance: Risankizumab showed superior efficacy compared with placebo through 16 weeks and treatment withdrawal through 2 years. Risankizumab was well tolerated, with no unexpected safety findings during the 2-year trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02672852.

Sample size considerations for comparing dynamic treatment regimens in a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial with a continuous longitudinal outcome.

Clinicians and researchers alike are increasingly interested in how best to personalize interventions. A dynamic treatment regimen is a sequence of prespecified decision rules which can be used to guide the delivery of a sequence of treatments or interventions that is tailored to the changing needs of the individual. The sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial is a research tool which allows for the construction of effective dynamic treatment regimens. We derive easy-to-use formulae for computing the total sample size for three common two-stage sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial designs in which the primary aim is to compare mean end-of-study outcomes for two embedded dynamic treatment regimens which recommend different first-stage treatments. The formulae are derived in the context of a regression model which leverages information from a longitudinal outcome collected over the entire study. We show that the sample size formula for a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial can be written as the product of the sample size formula for a standard two-arm randomized trial, a deflation factor that accounts for the increased statistical efficiency resulting from a longitudinal analysis, and an inflation factor that accounts for the design of a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial. The sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial design inflation factor is typically a function of the anticipated probability of response to first-stage treatment. We review modeling and estimation for dynamic treatment regimen effect analyses using a longitudinal outcome from a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial, as well as the estimation of standard errors. We also present estimators for the covariance matrix for a variety of common working correlation structures. Methods are motivated using the ENGAGE study, a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial aimed at developing a dynamic treatment regimen for increasing motivation to attend treatments among alcohol- and cocaine-dependent patients.

Power analysis in a SMART design: sample size estimation for determining the best embedded dynamic treatment regime.

Sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART) designs have become increasingly popular in the field of precision medicine by providing a means for comparing more than two sequences of treatments tailored to the individual patient, i.e., dynamic treatment regime (DTR). The construction of evidence-based DTRs promises a replacement to ad hoc one-size-fits-all decisions pervasive in patient care. However, there are substantial statistical challenges in sizing SMART designs due to the correlation structure between the DTRs embedded in the design (EDTR). Since a primary goal of SMARTs is the construction of an optimal EDTR, investigators are interested in sizing SMARTs based on the ability to screen out EDTRs inferior to the optimal EDTR by a given amount which cannot be done using existing methods. In this article, we fill this gap by developing a rigorous power analysis framework that leverages the multiple comparisons with the best methodology. Our method employs Monte Carlo simulation to compute the number of individuals to enroll in an arbitrary SMART. We evaluate our method through extensive simulation studies. We illustrate our method by retrospectively computing the power in the Extending Treatment Effectiveness of Naltrexone (EXTEND) trial. An R package implementing our methodology is available to download from the Comprehensive R Archive Network.

Identifying a set that contains the best dynamic treatment regimes.

A dynamic treatment regime (DTR) is a treatment design that seeks to accommodate patient heterogeneity in response to treatment. DTRs can be operationalized by a sequence of decision rules that map patient information to treatment options at specific decision points. The sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART) is a trial design that was developed specifically for the purpose of obtaining data that informs the construction of good (i.e. efficacious) decision rules. One of the scientific questions motivating a SMART concerns the comparison of multiple DTRs that are embedded in the design. Typical approaches for identifying the best DTRs involve all possible comparisons between DTRs that are embedded in a SMART, at the cost of greatly reduced power to the extent that the number of embedded DTRs (EDTRs) increase. Here, we propose a method that will enable investigators to use SMART study data more efficiently to identify the set that contains the most efficacious EDTRs. Our method ensures that the true best EDTRs are included in this set with at least a given probability. Simulation results are presented to evaluate the proposed method, and the Extending Treatment Effectiveness of Naltrexone SMART study data are analyzed to illustrate its application.