Comparative assessment of clinical response in patients with rheumatoid arthritis between PF-05280586, a proposed rituximab biosimilar, and rituximab.

AIMS: To evaluate potential differences between PF-05280586 and rituximab sourced from the European Union (rituximab-EU) and USA (rituximab-US) in clinical response (Disease Activity Score in 28 Joints [DAS28] and American College of Rheumatology [ACR] criteria), as part of the overall biosimilarity assessment of PF-05280586. METHODS: A randomised, double-blind, pharmacokinetic similarity trial was conducted in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis refractory to anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy on a background of methotrexate. Patients were treated with 1000 mg of PF-05280586, rituximab-EU or rituximab-US on days 1 and 15 and followed over 24 weeks for pharmacokinetic, clinical response and safety assessments. Key secondary end points were the areas under effect curves for DAS28 and ACR responses. Mean differences in areas under effect curves were compared against respective reference ranges established by observed rituximab-EU and rituximab-US responses using longitudinal nonlinear mixed effects models. RESULTS: The analysis included 214 patients. Demographics were similar across groups with exceptions in some baseline disease characteristics. Baseline imbalances and group-to-group variation were accounted for by covariate effects in each model. Predictions from the DAS28 and ACR models tracked the central tendency and distribution of observations well. No point estimates of mean differences were outside the reference range for DAS28 or ACR scores. The probabilities that the predicted differences between PF-05280586 vs. rituximab-EU or rituximab-US lie outside the reference ranges were low. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically meaningful differences were detected in DAS28 or ACR response between PF-05280586 and rituximab-EU or rituximab-US as the differences were within the pre-specified reference ranges. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01526057.

A phase I pharmacokinetics trial comparing PF-05280586 (a potential biosimilar) and rituximab in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis.

AIMS: Pharmacokinetic (PK) similarity was assessed among PF-05280586 (a proposed biosimilar) vs. rituximab sourced from the European Union (rituximab-EU) and the United States (rituximab-US). Pharmacodynamics (PD), overall safety and immunogenicity were also evaluated. METHODS: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis on a background of methotrexate and inadequate response to one or more tumour necrosis factor antagonist therapies were randomized to intravenous PF-05280586, rituximab-EU or rituximab-US 1000 mg doses on study days 1 and 15. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were randomized to receive study treatment as assigned. Of these, 198 met per-protocol population criteria for inclusion in the PK data analysis. PF-05280586, rituximab-EU and rituximab-US exhibited similar PK profiles following administration of assigned study drug on days 1 and 15. The 90% confidence intervals of test-to-reference ratios for Cmax , AUCT , AUC0-∞ and AUC2-week were within the bioequivalence margin of 80.00-125.00% for comparisons of PF-05280586 with rituximab-EU, PF-05280586 with rituximab-US, and rituximab-EU with rituximab-US. All treatments resulted in a rapid and profound reduction in CD19+ B cells and sustained profound B cell suppression up to week 25. The incidence of antidrug antibody (ADA) response (n = 7, 10 and 9 for PF-05280586, rituximab-EU and rituximab-US, respectively), time to ADA emergence and ADA titres were similar across treatments. None of the ADA-positive samples was positive for neutralizing activity. No clinically meaningful differences in adverse events were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated PK similarity among PF-05280586, rituximab-EU and rituximab-US. In addition, all treatments showed comparable CD19+ B cell depletion PD responses, as well as safety and immunogenicity profiles.

Results of a phase IIa study of VX-809, an investigational CFTR corrector compound, in subjects with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation.

BACKGROUND: VX-809, a cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator, has been shown to increase the cell surface density of functional F508del-CFTR in vitro. METHODS: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the safety, tolerability and pharmacodynamics of VX-809 in adult patients with cystic fibrosis (n=89) who were homozygous for the F508del-CFTR mutation. Subjects were randomised to one of four VX-809 28 day dose groups (25, 50, 100 and 200 mg) or matching placebo. RESULTS: The type and incidence of adverse events were similar among VX-809- and placebo-treated subjects. Respiratory events were the most commonly reported and led to discontinuation by one subject in each active treatment arm. Pharmacokinetic data supported a once-daily oral dosing regimen. Pharmacodynamic data suggested that VX-809 improved CFTR function in at least one organ (sweat gland). VX-809 reduced elevated sweat chloride values in a dose-dependent manner (p=0.0013) that was statistically significant in the 100 and 200 mg dose groups. There was no statistically significant improvement in CFTR function in the nasal epithelium as measured by nasal potential difference, nor were there statistically significant changes in lung function or patient-reported outcomes. No maturation of immature F508del-CFTR was detected in the subgroup that provided rectal biopsy specimens. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, VX-809 had a similar adverse event profile to placebo for 28 days in F508del-CFTR homozygous patients, and demonstrated biological activity with positive impact on CFTR function in the sweat gland. Additional data are needed to determine how improvements detected in CFTR function secondary to VX-809 in the sweat gland relate to those measurable in the respiratory tract and to long-term measures of clinical benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00865904.

Efficacy, pharmacodynamics, and safety of VX-702, a novel p38 MAPK inhibitor, in rheumatoid arthritis: results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of VX-702, a p38 MAPK inhibitor, in patients with active, moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Two 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of VX-702 were conducted in patients with active, moderate-to-severe RA. In the VeRA study, 313 patients received placebo or 2 daily doses of VX-702. In Study 304, 117 patients received placebo, daily VX-702, or twice weekly VX-702 in addition to concomitant methotrexate (MTX). Study end points included the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (an ACR20 response), ACR50 and ACR70 responses, changes in the serum levels of biomarkers of inflammation, and safety assessments. RESULTS: The numerically superior ACR20 response rates among patients receiving VX-702 compared with those receiving placebo in both studies did not reach pairwise statistical significance at the highest doses in either study. At week 12 in the VeRA study, ACR20 response rates were 40%, 36%, and 28% among patients receiving 10 mg of VX-702, 5 mg of VX-702, and placebo, respectively. In Study 304, the response rates were 40%, 44%, and 22% for patients receiving 10 mg VX-702 daily plus MTX, 10 mg VX-702 twice weekly plus MTX, and placebo, respectively. Reductions in the levels of C-reactive protein, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor p55, and serum amyloid A were observed as early as week 1 in both studies, but these levels rapidly returned to baseline values by week 4. The overall frequency of adverse events was similar between the VX-702 and placebo groups. In the VeRA study, serious infections were more frequent in the VX-702 groups compared with the placebo group (2.4% versus 0%) but not in Study 304 (2.6% versus 4.9%). CONCLUSION: The modest clinical efficacy plus the transient suppression of biomarkers of inflammation observed in this study suggest that p38 MAPK inhibition may not provide meaningful, sustained suppression of the chronic inflammation seen in RA.

The PREMIER study: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial of combination therapy with adalimumab plus methotrexate versus methotrexate alone or adalimumab alone in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis who had not had previous methotrexate treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of adalimumab plus methotrexate (MTX) versus MTX monotherapy or adalimumab monotherapy in patients with early, aggressive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had not previously received MTX treatment. METHODS: This was a 2-year, multicenter, double-blind, active comparator-controlled study of 799 RA patients with active disease of < 3 years' duration who had never been treated with MTX. Treatments included adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week plus oral MTX, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every other week, or weekly oral MTX. Co-primary end points at year 1 were American College of Rheumatology 50% improvement (ACR50) and mean change from baseline in the modified total Sharp score. RESULTS: Combination therapy was superior to both MTX and adalimumab monotherapy in all outcomes measured. At year 1, more patients receiving combination therapy exhibited an ACR50 response (62%) than did patients who received MTX or adalimumab monotherapy (46% and 41%, respectively; both P < 0.001). Similar superiority of combination therapy was seen in ACR20, ACR70, and ACR90 response rates at 1 and 2 years. There was significantly less radiographic progression (P < or = 0.002) among patients in the combination treatment arm at both year 1 and year 2 (1.3 and 1.9 Sharp units, respectively) than in patients in the MTX arm (5.7 and 10.4 Sharp units) or the adalimumab arm (3.0 and 5.5 Sharp units). After 2 years of treatment, 49% of patients receiving combination therapy exhibited disease remission (28-joint Disease Activity Score <2.6), and 49% exhibited a major clinical response (ACR70 response for at least 6 continuous months), rates approximately twice those found among patients receiving either monotherapy. The adverse event profiles were comparable in all 3 groups. CONCLUSION: In this population of patients with early, aggressive RA, combination therapy with adalimumab plus MTX was significantly superior to either MTX alone or adalimumab alone in improving signs and symptoms of disease, inhibiting radiographic progression, and effecting clinical remission.

Response to etanercept (Enbrel) in elderly patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a retrospective analysis of clinical trial results.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 3% of the US population over the age of 65 years has rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared the safety and efficacy of etanercept (Enbrel) in patients with RA who were > or = 65 years to those < 65 years in open-label and double-blind, randomized clinical trials. METHODS: Patients from 4 double-blind, randomized controlled trials and 5 open-label trials were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were grouped by age (< 65 or > or = 65 yrs) at time of study entry. All patients received etanercept subcutaneously twice weekly. Improvement in signs and symptoms was assessed by the proportion of patients who achieved the American College of Rheumatology definition of improvement (ACR 20). The ACR 50 and ACR 70 responses were calculated in an analogous fashion. Safety was assessed at regularly scheduled visits. RESULTS: Of 1128 patients enrolled in etanercept trials, 197 (17%) were > or = 65 years of age. Clinical response was rapid and sustained and did not differ between age groups. At one year, 69% of patients < 65 years and 66% of patients > or = 65 years met the ACR 20. Forty percent of the patients > or = 65 years met the ACR 50 and 17% met the ACR 70. Etanercept was well tolerated. Although injection site reactions, headache, and rhinitis occurred somewhat more frequently in younger patients, the overall rates and types of other adverse events were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: Etanercept is a new treatment option for older patients with RA and has substantial benefit and comparable safety regardless of patient age.

Etanercept versus methotrexate in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: two-year radiographic and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who received monotherapy with either etanercept or methotrexate (MTX) for 2 years and to assess the safety of this therapy. METHODS: In the Enbrel ERA (early rheumatoid arthritis) trial, 632 patients with early, active RA were randomized to receive either twice-weekly subcutaneous etanercept (10 mg or 25 mg) or weekly oral MTX (mean dosage 19 mg per week) for at least 1 year in a double-blind manner. Following the blinded phase of the trial, 512 patients continued to receive the therapy to which they had been randomized for up to 1 additional year, in an open-label manner. Radiograph readers remained blinded to treatment group assignment and the chronologic order of images. RESULTS: At 24 months, more 25-mg etanercept patients than MTX patients met American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (72% and 59%, respectively; P = 0.005), and more had no increase in total score and erosion scores on the Sharp scale (P = 0.017 and P = 0.012, respectively). The mean changes in total Sharp score and erosion score in the 25-mg etanercept group (1.3 and 0.66 units, respectively) were significantly lower than those in the MTX group (3.2 and 1.86 units, respectively; P = 0.001). Significantly more patients in the 25-mg etanercept group (55%) than in the MTX group (37%) had at least 0.5 units of improvement in the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index (P < 0.001). Fewer patients in the etanercept group than in the MTX group experienced adverse events or discontinued treatment because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Etanercept as monotherapy was safe and was superior to MTX in reducing disease activity, arresting structural damage, and decreasing disability over 2 years in patients with early, aggressive RA.