Efficacy and Safety of Rilzabrutinib in Pemphigus: PEGASUS Phase 3 Randomized Study.

TRIAL DESIGN: Pemphigus is a rare but life-threatening autoimmune disease requiring long-term treatment that minimizes corticosteroid (CS) exposure while providing consistent disease control. The phase 2 pemphigus study of oral, reversible, covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor rilzabrutinib demonstrated rapid and sustained efficacy with well-tolerated safety. METHODS: Adults (aged 18-80 years) were randomized 1:1 to 400 mg rilzabrutinib (n = 65) or placebo (n = 66) twice daily (with CS ≤ 0.5 mg/kg/d) for 37 weeks in the phase 3 PEGASUS study in moderate-to-severe pemphigus vulgaris/pemphigus foliaceus. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of complete remission from week 29 to week 37 with the amended endpoint CS dose ≤10 mg/d was not significant for 13 of 54 (24%) rilzabrutinib versus 10 of 55 (18%) placebo patients with PV (P = .45). Secondary endpoints showed numerical but nonsignificant improvements with rilzabrutinib (vs placebo) in reduced CS use, prolonged complete remission duration, and faster time to first complete remission. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, rilzabrutinib was well-tolerated, with similar adverse events reported in both groups. Using minimal CS dose ≤10 mg/d and excluding remote observations, the primary efficacy endpoint was not met. However, results from a prespecified sensitivity analysis using CS dose ≤5 mg/d, considering all observations, and including all patients support Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibition as a viable therapeutic approach for pemphigus.

Association of hemoglobin levels with radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an analysis from the BRASS registry.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate baseline hemoglobin (Hb) and radiographic progression over time in patients enrolled in the Brigham and Women's Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study (BRASS) registry. METHODS: The BRASS is a prospective observational registry of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. BRASS Hb data and total sharp score data were matched with the main BRASS patients. Hb at baseline was categorized per the World Health Organization guidelines. Mean Hb, mean total sharp score, and mean changes over time from baseline to month 120 were summarized (overall, by low/normal Hb, and by current medication at baseline). All analyses were descriptive. RESULTS: Out of the total (N = 1114) rheumatoid arthritis patients included in the analysis, patients with low Hb at baseline (n = 224 [20%]) had longer disease duration and higher disease activity and reported more pain compared with patients with normal Hb at baseline (n = 890 [80%]). Patients with low Hb at baseline continued to have lower Hb than patients with normal Hb throughout 10 years; although, on average, patients in the low Hb subgroup exhibited a steady increase in Hb levels. A larger increase in total sharp score over time was observed for patients with low Hb than for patients with normal Hb. No meaningful differences potentially attributable to medication at baseline were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low Hb levels at baseline tended to have increased radiographic progression as measured by total sharp score compared with patients with rheumatoid arthritis having normal Hb levels. Patients with low Hb experienced sustained improvements in Hb levels over time, regardless of the class of medication used. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01793103.

Immunogenicity of sarilumab and impact on safety and efficacy in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis: analysis of two Phase 3 randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the immunogenicity profile of sarilumab in Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients enrolled in the KAKEHASI and HARUKA studies were included in our analysis. In these studies, patients received sarilumab 150 mg or 200 mg every 2 weeks for 52 or 28 weeks in combination with methotrexate (MTX) (KAKEHASI), or for 52 weeks as monotherapy or in combination with non-MTX conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (HARUKA). Anti-drug antibodies (ADAs) and neutralising antibodies (NAbs) were assessed in the pooled population. RESULTS: Positive ADA assay responses occurred in 10/149 (7.1%) patients treated with sarilumab 150 mg and 13/185 (7.0%) patients treated with sarilumab 200 mg, with persistent responses in 2 (1.4%) and 4 (2.2%) patients, respectively. Peak ADA titre was 30. No patients treated with the 150 mg dose and one patient (0.5%) treated with the 200 mg dose exhibited NAbs. There was no evidence of an association between ADA formation and hypersensitivity reactions or reduced efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: ADAs, which occurred at a low frequency and titre, did not affect the safety or efficacy of sarilumab 150 or 200 mg administered as monotherapy or combination therapy in Japanese patients with RA in the KAKEHASI or HARUKA studies.

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. METHODS: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. FINDINGS: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference -1·7 [-9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [-6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI -7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. INTERPRETATION: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. FUNDING: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

Interleukin-6 receptor blockade or TNFα inhibition for reducing glycaemia in patients with RA and diabetes: post hoc analyses of three randomised, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is common in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Interleukin (IL)-6 is implicated in both the pathogenesis of RA and in glucose homeostasis; this post hoc analysis investigated the effects of IL-6 receptor vs. tumour necrosis factor inhibition on glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) in patients with RA with or without diabetes. METHODS: Data were from two placebo-controlled phase III studies of subcutaneous sarilumab 150/200 mg q2w + methotrexate or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) and a phase III monotherapy study of sarilumab 200 mg q2w vs. adalimumab 40 mg q2w. Patients with diabetes were identified by medical history or use of antidiabetic medication (patients with HbA1c ≥ 9% were excluded from all three studies). HbA1c was measured at baseline and weeks 12/24. Safety and efficacy were assessed in RA patients with or without diabetes. RESULTS: Patients with diabetes (n = 184) were older, weighed more and exhibited higher RA disease activity than patients without diabetes (n = 1928). Regardless of diabetes status, in patients on background csDMARDs, least squares (LS) mean difference (95% CI) in change from baseline in HbA1c for sarilumab 150 mg/200 mg vs. placebo at week 24 was - 0.28 (- 0.40, - 0.16; nominal p <  0.0001) and - 0.42 (- 0.54, - 0.31; nominal p <  0.0001), respectively. Without csDMARDs, LS mean difference for sarilumab 200 mg vs. adalimumab 40 mg at week 24 was - 0.13 (- 0.22, - 0.04; nominal p = 0.0043). Greater reduction in HbA1c than placebo or adalimumab was observed at week 24 with sarilumab in patients with diabetes and/or baseline HbA1c ≥ 7%. There was no correlation between baseline/change from baseline in HbA1c and baseline/change from baseline in C-reactive protein, 28-joint Disease Activity Score, or haemoglobin, nor between HbA1c change from baseline and baseline glucocorticoid use. Medical history of diabetes or use of diabetes treatments had limited impact on safety and efficacy of sarilumab and was consistent with overall phase III findings in patients with RA. CONCLUSIONS: In post hoc analyses, sarilumab was associated with a greater reduction in HbA1c than csDMARDs or adalimumab, independent of sarilumab anti-inflammatory effects. Prospective studies are required to further assess these preliminary findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinTrials.gov NCT01061736: date of registration February 03, 2010; ClinTrials.gov NCT01709578: date of registration October 18, 2012; ClinTrials.gov NCT02332590: date of registration January 07, 2015.

Sarilumab monotherapy or in combination with non-methotrexate disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in active rheumatoid arthritis: A Japan phase 3 trial (HARUKA).

Objectives: To determine long-term safety and efficacy of sarilumab as monotherapy or with non-methotrexate (MTX) conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods: In this double-blind, randomized study (NCT02373202), patients received subcutaneous sarilumab 150 mg q2w (S150) or 200 mg q2w (S200) as monotherapy or with non-MTX csDMARDs for 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was safety.Results: Sixty-one patients received monotherapy (S150, n = 30; S200, n = 31) and 30 received combination therapy (S150 + csDMARDs, n = 15; S200 + csDMARDs, n = 15). Rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 83.3%/90.3%/93.3%/86.7% for S150/S200/S150 + csDMARDs/S200 + csDMARDs, respectively. Nasopharyngitis and neutropenia were the most frequently reported TEAEs. One serious infection was reported in each monotherapy group and in the S200 + csDMARDs group. There were no cases of grade 4 neutropenia; no patients with grade 3 neutropenia experienced associated serious infection. Improvements in ACR20/50/70 response rates were generally similar between the two monotherapy groups and between the two combination groups; improvements in physical function (Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, HAQ-DI) and DAS28-CRP were observed at weeks 24 and 52 (all groups).Conclusion: The safety profile of sarilumab was consistent with known class effects of interleukin-6 signaling blockade therapeutics. Sarilumab as mono- or combination therapy improved clinical signs/symptoms and physical function in Japanese RA patients.

Correction to: Sarilumab plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial in Japan.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported an error in Table 2.

Sarilumab plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Sarilumab is a human immunoglobulin G1 anti-interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor monoclonal antibody that blocks IL-6 from binding to membrane-bound and soluble IL-6 receptor α. This bridging study assessed the efficacy and safety of sarilumab + methotrexate (MTX) in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). METHODS: In this phase III study, 243 patients were randomized 2:2:1:1 to receive subcutaneous sarilumab 150 mg every 2 weeks (q2w), sarilumab 200 mg q2w, placebo switching to sarilumab 150 mg q2w + MTX at 24 weeks, or placebo switching to sarilumab 200 mg q2w at 24 weeks, all in combination with MTX, for a total of 52 weeks (double-blind, placebo-controlled 24-week period followed by a single-blind 28-week extension). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) responses at week 24. RESULTS: ACR20 response rates at week 24 were 67.9%, 57.5%, and 14.8% for sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, and placebo, respectively. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 9.9%, 6.3%, 0%, and 13.3% of patients in the sarilumab 150 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, placebo to sarilumab 150 mg, and placebo to sarilumab 200 mg groups, respectively. No deaths occurred. The incidence of infections ranged from 52.5 to 67.9%, with five serious infections for the sarilumab 150 mg group and one for the group switched from placebo to 200 mg sarilumab. Absolute neutrophil count < 1.0 Giga/l occurred in 13.6% and 7.5% of patients in the sarilumab 150 and 200 mg groups, respectively, and was not associated with infection. CONCLUSIONS: In Japanese MTX-IR RA patients treated with sarilumab (150 and 200 mg q2w) in combination with MTX, sustained clinical efficacy was shown by significant improvement in signs, symptoms, and physical function; bridging between this and a previous global study was achieved. At week 52, the safety profiles of both doses of sarilumab were generally similar, as previously observed and as expected based on IL-6 class. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02293902 . Registered on 19 November 2014.

Placebo Response and Practice Effects in Schizophrenia Cognition Trials.

Importance: Patients' previous experience with performance-based cognitive tests in clinical trials for cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia can create practice-related improvements. Placebo-controlled trials for cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia are at risk for these practice effects, which can be difficult to distinguish from placebo effects. Objectives: To conduct a systematic evaluation of the magnitude of practice effects on the Measurement and Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) in cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia and to examine which demographic, clinical, and cognitive characteristics were associated with improvement in placebo conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants: A blinded review was conducted of data from 813 patients with schizophrenia who were treated with placebo in 12 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials conducted mostly in outpatient clinics in North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America from February 22, 2007, to March 1, 2014. A total of 779 patients provided data for the primary outcome measure at baseline and at least 1 follow-up. Seven trials had prebaseline assessments wherein the patients knew that they were not receiving treatment, allowing a comparison of practice and placebo effects in the same patients. Interventions: Placebo compared with various experimental drug treatments. Main Outcomes and Measures: Composite score on the MCCB. Results: Of the 813 patients in the study (260 women and 553 men; mean [SD] age, 41.2 [11.5] years), the mean MCCB composite score at baseline was 22.8 points below the normative mean, and the mean (SEM) total change in the MCCB during receipt of placebo was 1.8 (0.2) T-score points (95% CI, 1.40-2.18), equivalent to a change of 0.18 SD. Practice effects in the 7 studies in which there was a prebaseline assessment were essentially identical to the postbaseline placebo changes. Baseline factors associated with greater improvements in the MCCB during receipt of placebo included more depression/anxiety (F1,438 = 5.41; P = .02), more motivation (F1,272 = 4.63; P = .03), and less improvement from screening to baseline (F1,421 = 59.32; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Placebo effects were minimal and associated with the number of postbaseline assessments and several patient characteristics. Given that the patients performed 2.28 SDs below normative standards on average at baseline, a mean placebo-associated improvement of less than 0.2 SD provides evidence that ceiling effects do not occur in these trials. These minimal changes in the MCCB could not be responsible for effective active treatments failing to separate from placebo.