Association of Minimal Residual Disease Negativity Rates With Progression Free Survival in Frontline Therapy Trials for Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma: A Meta-analysis.

Current frontline therapies for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients have significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS). This has led to interest in minimal residual disease negativity (MRDng) as an efficacy-response biomarker and possible surrogate endpoint. A meta-analysis was conducted to explore the surrogacy of MRD for PFS and quantify the relationship between MRDng rates and PFS at the trial level. A systematic search was conducted on phase II and III trials reporting MRDng rates along with median PFS (mPFS) or PFS hazard ratios (HR). Weighted linear regressions were conducted relating mPFS to MRDng rates, and relating PFS HRs to either odds ratios (OR) or rate differences (RD) for MRDng in comparative trials. A total of 14 trials were available for the mPFS analysis. log(MRDng rate) was moderately associated with log (mPFS), with a slope of ß = 0.37 (95% CI, 0.26 to 0.48) and R2 = 0.62. A total of 13 trials were available for the PFS HR analysis. Treatment effects on MRDng rates were correlated with the corresponding effects on PFS: log (PFS HR) and log (MRDng OR) had a moderate association with ß = -0.36 (95% CI, -0.56 to -0.17) and R2 = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.77); log (PFS HR) and the MRDng RD had a stronger association with slope ß = -0.03 (95% CI, -0.04 to -0.02) and R2 = 0.67 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.86). MRDng rates moderately associate with PFS outcomes. MRDng RDs are more strongly associated with HRs than MRDng ORs, with evidence suggestive of potential surrogacy.

A randomised trial of anti-GM-CSF otilimab in severe COVID-19 pneumonia (OSCAR).

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and dysregulated myeloid cell responses are implicated in the pathophysiology and severity of COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, sequential, multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind study, adults aged 18-79 years (Part 1) or ≥70 years (Part 2) with severe COVID-19, respiratory failure and systemic inflammation (elevated C-reactive protein/ferritin) received a single intravenous infusion of otilimab 90 mg (human anti-GM-CSF monoclonal antibody) plus standard care (NCT04376684). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. RESULTS: In Part 1 (n=806 randomised 1:1 otilimab:placebo), 71% of otilimab-treated patients were alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28 versus 67% who received placebo; the model-adjusted difference of 5.3% was not statistically significant (95% CI -0.8-11.4%, p=0.09). A nominally significant model-adjusted difference of 19.1% (95% CI 5.2-33.1%, p=0.009) was observed in the predefined 70-79 years subgroup, but this was not confirmed in Part 2 (n=350 randomised) where the model-adjusted difference was 0.9% (95% CI -9.3-11.2%, p=0.86). Compared with placebo, otilimab resulted in lower serum concentrations of key inflammatory markers, including the putative pharmacodynamic biomarker CC chemokine ligand 17, indicative of GM-CSF pathway blockade. Adverse events were comparable between groups and consistent with severe COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients alive and free of respiratory failure at Day 28. However, despite the lack of clinical benefit, a reduction in inflammatory markers was observed with otilimab, in addition to an acceptable safety profile.

Anti-granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody otilimab in patients with hand osteoarthritis: a phase 2a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is a key mediator of signs and symptoms in preclinical models of osteoarthritis. We explored the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of an anti-GM-CSF antibody, otilimab, in patients with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2a study was done in 16 centres in the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, the UK, and the USA. Patients aged 18 years or older with inflammatory hand osteoarthritis, who had received at least one course of unsuccessful non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, with two or more swollen and tender interphalangeal joints (on the same hand), signs of inflammation or synovitis identified with MRI in the affected hand, and a self-reported 24 h average hand pain intensity over the past 7 days of 5 or more on a 0-10 numerical rating scale were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology (blocked randomisation; block size of four) to receive either subcutaneous otilimab 180 mg or placebo, administered weekly from week 0 to week 4, then every other week until week 10. Patients, investigators, and trial staff were masked to treatment; at least one administrator at each site was unmasked to prepare and administer treatment. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24 h average hand pain numeric rating scale averaged over 7 days before the visit at week 6. Secondary endpoints were: change from baseline in 24 h average and worst hand pain intensity at each visit; proportion of patients showing 30% and 50% reductions in 24 h average and worst hand pain intensity at each visit; change from baseline in Australian and Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN) 3·1 numeric rating scale questionnaire components at each visit; change in number of swollen and tender hand joints at each visit; change from baseline in Patient and Physician Global Assessment of disease activity; serum concentration of otilimab; and safety parameters. Efficacy endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The safety population included all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02683785. FINDINGS: Between March 17, 2016, and Nov 29, 2017, 44 patients were randomly assigned (22 in the placebo group and 22 in the otilimab group). At week 6, difference in change from baseline in 24 h average hand pain numeric rating scale between the otilimab and placebo groups was -0·36 (95% CI -1·31 to 0·58; p=0·44); at week 12, the difference was -0·89 (-2·06 to 0·28; p=0·13). Patients receiving otilimab showed greater improvement in AUSCAN components versus placebo at each visit. The change from baseline in the 24 h worst hand pain numeric rating scale in the otilimab group at week 6 showed a difference over placebo of -0·33 (95% CI -1·28 to 0·63; p=0·49); at week 12, this difference was -1·01 (95% CI -2·22 to 0·20; p=0·098). The proportion of patients achieving 30% or higher or 50% or higher reduction from baseline in the 24 h average and worst hand pain numeric rating scale scores was consistently greater (although non-significant) with otilimab versus placebo. Similarly, patients receiving otilimab showed greater improvement in AUSCAN pain, functional impairment, and stiffness scores versus placebo at each visit. No differences were observed between otilimab and placebo in the change from baseline in the number of swollen and tender joints across the study. The Patient Global Assessment was consistently lower than placebo at all visits; the Physician Global Assessment showed reductions across the study period, but the changes were similar in both treatment groups. Median otilimab serum concentrations increased during weekly dosing from 1730 ng/mL at week 1 to a maximum of 3670 ng/mL at week 4, but declined after transitioning to dosing every other week (weeks 6-10). In total, 84 adverse events were reported by 24 patients: 54 adverse events in 13 (59%) patients in the otilimab group and 30 adverse events in 11 (50%) patients in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were cough (reported in 4 [9%] patients; 2 in each group), and nasopharyngitis (in 3 [7%] patients; 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the otilimab group). Three serious adverse events occurred in this study (all in the otilimab group) and were deemed not related to the study medication. There were no deaths during the study. INTERPRETATION: There was no significant difference between otilimab and placebo in the primary endpoint, although we noted a non-significant trend towards a reduction in pain and functional impairment with otilimab, which supports a potential role for GM-CSF in hand osteoarthritis-associated pain. There were no unexpected safety findings in this study, with no treatment-related serious adverse events reported. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

MRI of the joint and evaluation of the granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-CCL17 axis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving otilimab: a phase 2a randomised mechanistic study.

BACKGROUND: Otilimab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a driver in many immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. We evaluated the effect of otilimab on the GM-CSF-chemokine (C-C motif) ligand 17 (CCL17) axis and synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: This phase 2a, randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was done at nine sites across the USA, Poland, and Germany. Patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis per American College of Rheumatology-European League Against Rheumatism 2010 criteria and receiving stable methotrexate were randomly assigned (3:1) by an interactive response technology system to either subcutaneous otilimab 180 mg or placebo once weekly for 5 weeks, then every other week until week 10 (within a 12-week treatment period), followed by a 10-week safety follow-up. Randomisation was stratified by early rheumatoid arthritis (≤2 years since diagnosis) and established rheumatoid arthritis (>2 years since diagnosis). Patients and study personnel (except for an unblinded coordinator or nurse who prepared and administered the study drug) were blinded to treatment assignment; the syringe was shielded during administration. Patients were enrolled by study investigators and allocated to a treatment by central randomisation on the basis of a schedule generated by the sponsor. The primary endpoint was change over time (assessed at baseline and weeks 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 22 of follow-up) in 112 biomarkers, including target engagement biomarkers and those that may be indicative of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity and response to otilimab. Secondary endpoints were change from baseline in synovitis, osteitis and erosion assessed by rheumatoid arthritis MRI scoring system (RAMRIS) and rheumatoid arthritis MRI quantitative score (RAMRIQ), and safety evaluation. The primary, secondary, and safety endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Biomarker and MRI endpoints were analysed for differences between treatment groups using a repeated measures model. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02799472. FINDINGS: Between Aug 9, 2016, and Oct 30, 2017, 39 patients were randomly assigned and included in the analysis (otilimab n=28; placebo n=11). In the otilimab group, mean serum concentrations of GM-CSF-otilimab complex peaked at week 4 (138·4 ng/L, 95% CI 90·0-212·9) but decreased from week 6-12. CCL17 concentrations decreased from baseline to week 1, remained stable to week 8, and returned to baseline at week 12; least-squares mean ratio to baseline was 0·65 (95% CI 0·49-0·86; coefficient of variation 13·60) at week 2, 0·68 (0·53-0·88; 12·51) at week 4, 0·78 (0·60-1·00; 12·48) at week 6, and 0·68 (0·54-0·85; 11·21) at week 8. No meaningful change in CCL17 concentrations was observed with placebo. In the otilimab group, the least-squares mean ratio to baseline in MMP-degraded type I collagen was 0·86-0·91 over weeks 1-8, returning to baseline at week 12; concentrations remained above baseline at all timepoints in the placebo group. There were no observable differences between otilimab and placebo for all other biomarkers. At week 12, least-squares mean change in RAMRIS synovitis score from baseline was -1·3 (standard error [SE] 0·6) in the otilimab group and 0·8 (1·2) with placebo; RAMRIQ synovitis score showed a least-squares mean change from baseline of -1417·0 µl (671·5) in the otilimab group and -912·3 µl (1405·8) with placebo. Compared with placebo, otilimab did not show significant reductions from baseline to week 12 in RAMRIS synovitis, osteitis and bone erosion, or in RAMRIQ synovitis and erosion damage. Adverse events were reported in 11 (39%) of 28 otilimab-treated and four (36%) of 11 placebo-treated patients, most commonly cough in the otilimab group (2 [7%] of 28; not reported in placebo group), and pain in extremity (four [36%] of 11) and rheumatoid arthritis (two [18%] of 11) in the placebo group (not reported in otilimab group). There were no serious adverse events or deaths. INTERPRETATION: Serum concentrations of GM-CSF-otilimab complex indicated that target engagement was achieved with initial weekly dosing, but not sustained with every other week dosing. CCL17 might be a pharmacodynamic biomarker for otilimab activity in future studies. Otilimab was well tolerated and, despite suboptimal exposure, showed some evidence for improved synovitis over 12 weeks in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Efficacy, patient-reported outcomes, and safety of the anti-granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody otilimab (GSK3196165) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised, phase 2b, dose-ranging study.

BACKGROUND: The human monoclonal antibody otilimab inhibits granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), a key driver in immune-mediated inflammatory conditions. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and key patient-reported outcomes related to pain in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis receiving otilimab. METHODS: This phase 2b, dose-ranging, multicentre, placebo-controlled study was done at 64 sites across 14 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving stable methotrexate were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1) to subcutaneous placebo or otilimab 22·5 mg, 45 mg, 90 mg, 135 mg, or 180 mg, plus methotrexate, once weekly for 5 weeks, then every other week until week 50. The randomisation schedule was generated by the sponsor, and patients were assigned to treatment by interactive response technology. Randomisation was blocked (block size of six) but was not stratified. Investigators, patients, and the sponsor were blinded to treatment. An unblinded administrator prepared and administered the study drug. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved disease activity score for 28 joints with C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <2·6 at week 24. Patients who were not in the otilimab 180 mg group, without a good or moderate European League Against Rheumatism response (week 12) or with DAS28-CRP >3·2 (week 24) escaped to otilimab 180 mg. Patients who escaped were treated as non-responders in their original assigned group. Safety endpoints were incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events, infections, and pulmonary events. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02504671. FINDINGS: Between July 23, 2015, and Dec 29, 2017, 222 patients were randomly assigned (37 to each group). 86 (49%) of 175 escaped to otilimab 180 mg at week 12 and 57 (69%) of 83 at week 24. At week 24, the proportion of patients with DAS28-CRP <2·6 was two (5%) of 37 in the otilimab 22·5 mg group, six (16%) of 37 in the 45 mg group, seven (19%) of 37 in the 90 mg group, five (14%) of 37 in the 135 mg group, five (14%) of 37 in the 180 mg, and one (3%) of 37 in the placebo group. The largest difference was achieved with otilimab 90 mg (16·2%; odds ratio [OR] 8·39, 95% CI 0·98-72·14; p=0·053). Adverse events were reported pre-escape in 19-24 (51-65%) patients and post escape in 10-17 (40-61%) patients across otilimab dose groups and in 18 (49%) of 37 and 22 (67%) of 33 in the placebo group. The most common adverse event was nasopharyngitis: 3-9 (8-24%) in otilimab groups and one (3%) in the placebo group pre-escape and 1-3 (4-10%) in otilimab groups and seven (21%) in the placebo group post escape. Pre-escape serious adverse events were foot fracture (otilimab 45 mg); arthralgia, myocardial infarction, dizziness (otilimab 90 mg); oesophageal spasm, acute pyelonephritis (otilimab 22·5 mg), and uterine leiomyoma (otilimab 135 mg). Post-escape serious adverse events were ankle fracture (placebo) and rheumatoid arthritis (otilimab 135 mg). There were no deaths or pulmonary events of clinical concern, and rates of serious infection were low. INTERPRETATION: Otilimab plus methotrexate was well tolerated and, despite not achieving the primary endpoint of DAS28-CRP remission, there were improvements compared with placebo in disease activity scores. Of note, patients reported significant improvement in pain and physical function, supporting further clinical development of otilimab in rheumatoid arthritis. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Lamotrigine as add-on therapy in schizophrenia: results of 2 placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: : Lamotrigine previously was found to attenuate ketamine-induced behavioral changes and, in 2 placebo-controlled trials, to improve psychosis when added to antipsychotic medication. We sought to evaluate the potential role of lamotrigine augmentation in schizophrenia patients resistant to atypical antipsychotic medication. METHODS: : Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week, parallel-group trials were conducted to compare flexibly dosed lamotrigine (100-400 mg/d) with placebo as add-on treatment in schizophrenia patients with stable, residual psychotic symptoms. The primary end point was changed in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total score at week 12. RESULTS: : Two hundred seventeen patients were enrolled in study 1 and 212 in study 2; completion rates in the intent-to-treat samples were 71% and 74%, respectively, and did not differ between treatment groups. Overall, mean Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total scores improved in both studies and did not differ between treatment groups. In study 1, the Scale for Assessment of Negative Symptoms total score and Clinical Global Impression improved more with placebo than with lamotrigine; in study 2, the cognitive composite score improved more with lamotrigine than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: : Results from these 2 studies do not support the use of lamotrigine as an adjunct to atypical antipsychotics in patients with refractory psychosis. It is unclear why positive results from previous lamotrigine trials were not replicated. The positive effect of lamotrigine on cognition in one trial, while of uncertain significance, may merit further study.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of paroxetine in children and adolescents with social anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: Social anxiety disorder is a debilitating, highly prevalent disorder in children and adolescents. If left untreated, it can interfere with emotional, social, and school functioning. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of paroxetine in children and adolescents with social anxiety disorder. DESIGN AND SETTING: Multicenter, 16-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose, parallel-group, outpatient study. Patients A total of 322 children (8-11 years of age) and adolescents (12-17 years of age) with social anxiety disorder as their predominant psychiatric illness. Intervention Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to receive paroxetine (10-50 mg/d) or placebo. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-five patients were screened, and 322 were randomized to treatment. Of these, 319 were included in the intention-to-treat population (paroxetine, n = 163; placebo, n = 156). At the week 16 last observation carried forward end point, the odds of responding (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score of 1 or 2) were statistically significantly greater for paroxetine (77.6% response [125/161]) than for placebo (38.3% response [59/154]) (adjusted odds ratio, 7.02; 95% confidence interval, 4.07 to 12.11; P<.001). The proportion of patients who were "very much" improved (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement score of 1) was 47.8% (77/161) for paroxetine compared with 14.9% (23/154) for placebo. Adverse events occurring at an incidence of 5% or greater for paroxetine and twice that for placebo were insomnia (14.1% vs 5.8%), decreased appetite (8.0% vs 3.2%), and vomiting (6.7% vs 1.9%). Withdrawals due to adverse events were infrequent (5.5% [9/163] for paroxetine and 1.3% [2/156] for placebo). CONCLUSION: Paroxetine is an effective, generally well-tolerated treatment for pediatric social anxiety disorder.

Controlled-release paroxetine in the treatment of patients with social anxiety disorder.

BACKGROUND: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, flexible-dose study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of the controlled-release (CR) formulation of paroxetine in adults with social anxiety disorder. METHOD: Outpatients with a primary diagnosis of social anxiety disorder according to DSM-IV criteria entered a 1-week, single-blind, placebo run-in period. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive paroxetine CR (flexible dose of 12.5-37.5 mg/day) or placebo for 12 weeks of treatment. The primary efficacy measures were the change from baseline in Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) score and the proportion of responders based on Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)-Global Improvement scale score. Data were gathered from September 2001 to July 2002. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population consisted of 186 patients randomly assigned to paroxetine CR and 184 patients randomly assigned to placebo. Statistically significant differences in favor of paroxetine CR compared with placebo were observed in the change from baseline to week 12 last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) dataset in LSAS total score (difference = -13.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -18.25 to -8.41, p <.001). In the CGI-Global Improvement responder analysis, 57.0% of patients treated with paroxetine CR achieved response (very much improved or much improved), compared with 30.4% of patients treated with placebo at week 12 LOCF (odds ratio = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.01 to 4.83, p <.001). Dropout rates due to adverse events were low and comparable in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Paroxetine CR effectively treated the symptoms associated with social anxiety disorder and was well tolerated, with few patients stopping treatment due to adverse events. This favorable tolerability profile may enable more patients to experience the benefits of effective therapy.