OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy, safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetics (PK) of SB2 to the infliximab reference product (INF) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate therapy.
METHODS: This is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, multinational, multicentre parallel group study. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite methotrexate therapy were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either SB2 or INF of 3 mg/kg. The primary end point was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 30. Inclusion of the 95% CI of the ACR20 response difference within a ±15% margin was required for equivalence.
RESULTS: 584 subjects were randomised into SB2 (N=291; 290 analysed) or INF (N=293). The ACR20 response at week 30 in the per-protocol set was 64.1% in SB2 versus 66.0% in INF. The adjusted rate difference was -1.88% (95% CI -10.26% to 6.51%), which was within the predefined equivalence margin. Other efficacy outcomes such as ACR50/70, disease activity score measured by 28 joints and European League against Rheumatism response were similar between SB2 and INF. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (57.6% in SB2 vs 58.0% in INF) as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies (ADA) to infliximab up to week 30 (55.1% in SB2 vs 49.7% in INF). The PK profile was similar between SB2 and INF. Efficacy, safety and PK by ADA subgroup were comparable between SB2 and INF.
CONCLUSIONS: SB2 was equivalent to INF in terms of ACR20 response at week 30. SB2 was well tolerated with a comparable safety profile, immunogenicity and PK to INF.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01936181.
Objectives To evaluate equivalence in efficacy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compare the safety of the biosimilar HD203 with innovator etanercept (ETN) plus methotrexate (MTX) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01270997). Methods Patients with active RA received 25 mg HD203 or ETN subcutaneously twice-weekly with MTX for 48 weeks in a phase III, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group design. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving the American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at week 24 for per-protocol study completer set (PPS). Secondary end points included ACR response criteria, ACRn, European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response, change in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28), patient-reported outcomes, safety and immunogenicity. Results Of the 294 randomised patients (HD203, n=147; ETN, n=147), 233 comprised the 24-week PPS (n=115 and 118, respectively). ACR20 at week 24 was achieved by 83.48% and 81.36% of PPS patients, respectively, demonstrating equivalent efficacy within predefined margins of ±20% (treatment difference 2.12%, 95% CI -7.65% to 11.89%). Outcomes for secondary end points were consistent with the primary efficacy findings. Groups were comparable for overall incidences of treatment-emergent (all-causality) adverse events (AEs) (HD203 113 (76.9%) vs ETN 114 (78.1%) ( p=0.804)), adverse drug reactions, serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs. Few patients (HD203, n=8; ETN, n=3) tested positive for anti-drug antibodies. Conclusion The study met the primary objective of demonstrating equivalent efficacy of HD203 and ETN. HD203 was well tolerated, with safety comparable with ETN in this population of patients with RA. Trial registration number NCT01270997; Results.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of SB4 (an etanercept biosimilar) with reference product etanercept (ETN) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite methotrexate (MTX) therapy.
METHODS: This is a phase III, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre study with a 24-week primary endpoint. Patients with moderate to severe RA despite MTX treatment were randomised to receive weekly dose of 50 mg of subcutaneous SB4 or ETN. The primary endpoint was the American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 24. Other efficacy endpoints as well as safety, immunogenicity and pharmacokinetic parameters were also measured.
RESULTS: 596 patients were randomised to either SB4 (N=299) or ETN (N=297). The ACR20 response rate at week 24 in the per-protocol set was 78.1% for SB4 and 80.3% for ETN. The 95% CI of the adjusted treatment difference was -9.41% to 4.98%, which is completely contained within the predefined equivalence margin of -15% to 15%, indicating therapeutic equivalence between SB4 and ETN. Other efficacy endpoints and pharmacokinetic endpoints were comparable. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was comparable (55.2% vs 58.2%), and the incidence of antidrug antibody development up to week 24 was lower in SB4 compared with ETN (0.7% vs 13.1%).
CONCLUSIONS: SB4 was shown to be equivalent with ETN in terms of efficacy at week 24. SB4 was well tolerated with a lower immunogenicity profile. The safety profile of SB4 was comparable with that of ETN.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01895309, EudraCT 2012-005026-30.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and safety of combination therapy using certolizumab pegol (CZP) and methotrexate (MTX) as first-line treatment for MTX-naive, early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with poor prognostic factors, compared with MTX alone.
METHODS: MTX-naive, early RA patients with ≤12 months persistent disease, high anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide, and either rheumatoid factor positive and/or presence of bone erosions were enrolled in this multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo (PBO)-controlled study. Patients were randomised 1:1 to CZP+MTX or PBO+MTX for 52 weeks. Primary endpoint was inhibition of radiographic progression (change from baseline in modified Total Sharp Score (mTSS CFB)) at week 52. Secondary endpoints were mTSS CFB at week 24, and clinical remission rates at weeks 24 and 52.
RESULTS: 316 patients randomised to CZP+MTX (n=159) or PBO+MTX (n=157) had comparable baseline characteristics reflecting features of early RA (mean disease duration: 4.0 vs 4.3 months; Disease Activity Score 28-joint assessment (DAS28)) (erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR)): 5.4 vs 5.5; mTSS: 5.2 vs 6.0). CZP+MTX group showed significantly greater inhibition of radiographic progression relative to PBO+MTX at week 52 (mTSS CFB=0.36 vs 1.58; p<0.001) and week 24 (mTSS CFB=0.26 vs 0.86; p=0.003). Clinical remission rates (Simple Disease Activity Index, Boolean and DAS28 (ESR)) of the CZP+MTX group were significantly higher compared with those of the PBO+MTX group, at weeks 24 and 52. Safety results in both groups were similar, with no new safety signals observed with addition of CZP to MTX.
CONCLUSIONS: In MTX-naive early RA patients with poor prognostic factors, CZP+MTX significantly inhibited structural damage and reduced RA signs and symptoms, demonstrating the efficacy of CZP in these patients.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: (NCT01451203).
BACKGROUND: Treat-to-target therapy is effective for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but long-term results of continued targeted treatment are lacking.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate long-term outcomes in patients with early RA after 10 years of targeted treatment in 4 treatment strategies.
DESIGN: Randomized trial. (Nederlands Trial Register: NTR262 and NTR265).
SETTING: The Netherlands.
PATIENTS: 508 patients with early active RA.
INTERVENTION: Sequential monotherapy (strategy 1), step-up combination therapy (strategy 2), or initial combination therapy with prednisone (strategy 3) or with infliximab (strategy 4), all followed by targeted treatment aiming at low disease activity.
MEASUREMENTS: Functional ability (Health Assessment Questionnaire [HAQ] score) and radiographic progression (Sharp-van der Heijde score) were primary end points. Survival in the study population was compared with the general population using the standardized mortality ratio.
RESULTS: 195 of 508 of patients (38%) dropped out of the study (28% in strategy 4 vs. 40% to 45% in strategies 1 to 3, respectively). At year 10, mean HAQ score (SD) was 0.57 (0.56); 53% and 14% of patients were in remission and drug-free remission, respectively, without differences among the strategies. Over 10 years, mean HAQ scores were 0.69, 0.72, 0.64, and 0.58 in strategies 1 to 4, respectively (differences not clinically relevant). Radiographic damage was limited for all strategies, with mean Sharp-van der Heijde estimates during follow-up of 11, 8, 8, and 6 in strategies 1 to 4, respectively (P = 0.15). Standardized mortality ratio was 1.16 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.46) based on 72 observed and 62 expected deaths, with similar survival among the 4 strategies (P = 0.81).
LIMITATION: Dropout rate varied by strategy.
CONCLUSION: In patients with early RA, initial (temporary) combination therapy results in faster clinical improvement and targeted treatment determines long-term outcomes. Drug-free remission, with prevention of functional deterioration and clinically relevant radiographic damage, and normalized survival are realistic outcomes.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Dutch College of Health Insurance Companies, Schering-Plough, and Janssen.
OBJECTIVE: To report 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the head-to-head Abatacept versus Adalimumab Comparison in Biologic-Naive RA Subjects with Background Methotrexate (MTX) (AMPLE) trial.
METHODS: AMPLE was a phase IIIb, randomized, investigator-blinded trial. Biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response to MTX were randomized to subcutaneous (SC) abatacept (125 mg/week) or adalimumab (40 mg every 2 weeks) with background MTX. PROs (pain, fatigue, ability to perform work, and ability to perform daily activities) were compared up to year 2 for patients in each treatment group, as well as those who achieved low disease activity at both years 1 and 2 (responders) and those who did not (nonresponders).
RESULTS: A total of 646 patients were randomized and treated with SC abatacept (n = 318) or adalimumab (n = 328). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 treatment arms. Comparable improvements in PROs were observed in the abatacept and adalimumab groups over 2 years, with both groups achieving clinically meaningful improvements in PROs from baseline. At year 2, fatigue improved by 23.4 mm and 21.5 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale with abatacept and adalimumab, respectively. Clinical responders achieved greater improvements in PROs than nonresponders.
CONCLUSION: In biologic-naive patients with active RA, despite prior MTX, treatment with SC abatacept or adalimumab with background MTX resulted in comparable improvements in PROs, which were highly correlated with physician-reported clinical response end points.
OBJECTIVES: To study clinical and radiographic outcomes after withdrawing 1 year's adalimumab induction therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) added to a methotrexate and intra-articular triamcinolone hexacetonide treat-to-target strategy (NCT00660647).
METHODS: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with eRA started methotrexate (20 mg/week) and intra-articular triamcinolone (20 mg/ml) for 2 years. In addition, they were randomised to receive placebo adalimumab (DMARD group, n=91) or adalimumab (40 mg/every other week) (DMARD+adalimumab group, n=89) during the first year. Sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine were added if disease activity persisted after 3 months. During year 2, synthetic DMARDs continued. Adalimumab was (re)initiated if active disease reoccurred. Clinical response, remission, disability, quality of life and radiographic changes were assessed.
RESULTS: One year after adalimumab withdrawal, treatment profiles and clinical responses did not differ between groups. In the DMARD/DMARD+adalimumab groups, the median 2-year methotrexate dose was 20/20 mg/week (p=0.45), triple DMARD therapy had been initiated in 33/27 patients (p=0.49), adalimumab was (re)initiated in 12/12 patients and cumulative triamcinolone dose was 160/120 mg (p=0.15). The treatment target (disease activity score, 4 variables, C-reactive protein (DAS28CRP) ≤3.2 or DAS28>3.2 without swollen joints) was achieved at all visits in ≥85% of patients in year 2; remission rates were DAS28CRP<2.6:69%/66%; Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤2.8:55%/57%; Simplified Disease Activity Index <3.3:54%/49%; American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism (28 joints):44%/45% (p=0.66-1.00). Radiographic progression (Δtotal Sharp score/year) was similar 1.31/0.53 (p=0.12). Erosive progression (Δerosion score (ES)/year) was year 1:0.57/0.06 (p=0.02); year 2:0.38/0.05 (p=0.005). Proportion of patients without erosive progression (ΔES≤0) was year 1: 59%/76% (p=0.03); year 2:64%/79% (p=0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: An aggressive triamcinolone and synthetic DMARD treat-to-target strategy in eRA provided excellent 2-year clinical and radiographic disease control independent of adalimumab induction therapy. ES progression was slightly less during and following adalimumab induction therapy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00660647.
OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of anakinra (interleukin-1 receptor antagonist) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is unknown. We evaluated the efficacy of anakinra (combined with methotrexate) in a randomised clinical trial of early active RA patients.
METHODS: The Combination Anti-Rheumatic Drugs in Early RA-2 (CARDERA-2) trial was a randomised trial of early (duration <1 year) active RA. Patients were randomised to 12 months of: (1) methotrexate or (2) anakinra-methotrexate. Follow-up lasted 2 years. The primary outcome was erosive progression (changes from baseline in modified Larsen scores). Secondary outcomes were changes from baseline in disease activity score on a 28-joint count (DAS28), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), and quality of life (EQ-5D) scores alongside ACR responder rates.
RESULTS: 154 patients received the allocated intervention (from 259 screened). Similar Larsen score progression was seen at 12 and 24 months in patients receiving anakinra-methotrexate (mean changes from baseline of 2.50 and 5.10, respectively) and methotrexate monotherapy (mean changes from baseline of 4.16 and 5.20, respectively). Lower improvements in DAS28 and HAQ scores were seen at all time-points in anakinra-methotrexate treated patients; these were significantly less at 24 months (DAS28 p=0.04; HAQ P=0.02). Significantly lower EQ-5D score increases were seen at 12 months with anakinra-methotrexate (p=0.03). Anakinra-methotrexate was associated with more serious adverse events compared with methotrexate monotherapy (11 vs. 6 patients), although this was not significant (p=0.59).
CONCLUSIONS: Anakinra (combined with methotrexate) is not effective in early, active RA. It provided no clinical benefits beyond methotrexate monotherapy.
