Analysis of on-treatment cancer safety events with daprodustat versus conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agents-post hoc analyses of the ASCEND-ND and ASCEND-D trials.

BACKGROUND: The prespecified on-treatment analysis of ASCEND-ND (NCT02876835) raised concerns about a higher relative risk of cancer-related adverse events (AEs) with daprodustat vs darbepoetin in patients with anaemia of CKD. This concern was not observed in dialysis patients in ASCEND-D (NCT02879305). METHODS: ASCEND-ND randomized 3872 patients to daprodustat or darbepoetin. ASCEND-D randomized 2964 patients to daprodustat or conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). In both studies ESA comparators used different dosing intervals (3/week, 1/week, every 2 or every 4 weeks). The prespecified on-treatment approach examined relative risks for cancer AEs up to the last dose date + 1 day. In these analyses, owing to different dosing intervals between arms, Cox models were used to estimate the daprodustat effect by various follow-up periods (censoring at last dose date, last dose date + dosing intervals, or end of study). RESULTS: In ASCEND-ND, the safety of daprodustat vs darbepoetin on cancer-related AEs depended on the duration of follow-up after last dose date: hazard ratio (HR) 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77, 1.40] at end of study [HR 1.12 (95% CI 0.81, 1.56) for last dose date + dosing interval; HR 1.50 (95% CI 1.04, 2.15) for last dose date + 1 day]. In ASCEND-D, no excess risk of cancer-related AEs was observed with any model examined. CONCLUSIONS: Prespecified on-treatment analyses for cancer-related AEs appeared to result in biased risk estimates in ASCEND-ND by preferentially under-counting events from patients assigned to darbepoetin. Analyses accounting for longer darbepoetin dosing intervals, or extending follow-up, resulted in attenuation of effect estimates towards neutrality, similar to ASCEND-D, where ESA comparator dosing intervals are closer to daprodustat. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The ASCEND-ND trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02876835); the ASCEND-D trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02879305).

Mepolizumab improves clinical outcomes in patients with severe asthma and comorbid conditions.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidities can complicate the management of severe asthma; therefore, the presence of comorbid conditions or traits often need to be considered when considering treatment options for patients with severe asthma. The aim of this analysis is to investigate the efficacy of mepolizumab in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma and comorbidities. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis (GSK ID:209140) of data from the Phase IIb/III studies DREAM, MENSA, SIRIUS, and MUSCA. Patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma were randomized to: mepolizumab 750, 250, or 75 mg intravenously or placebo (DREAM); mepolizumab 75 mg intravenously or 100 mg subcutaneously or placebo (MENSA); or mepolizumab 100 mg subcutaneously or placebo (SIRIUS and MUSCA) every 4 weeks for 24 weeks in SIRIUS and MUSCA, 32 weeks in MENSA or 52 weeks in DREAM. In this analysis the primary endpoint was the annual rate of clinically significant exacerbations; secondary endpoints were Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s at study end. Subgroups were based on comorbidities at baseline. RESULTS: Overall, 1878 patients received placebo (n = 689) or mepolizumab (n = 1189). Across all comorbidity subgroups mepolizumab reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations by 44-68% versus placebo, improved Asthma Control Questionnaire-5 score by 0.27-0.59 points, and improved St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score by 5.0-11.6 points. Pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s was improved by 27.1-286.9 mL in all but one comorbidity subgroup, the diabetes mellitus subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab reduces exacerbations, and improves asthma control, health-related quality of life, and lung function in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma despite comorbid conditions, including upper respiratory conditions, psychopathologies, cardiovascular conditions, gastroesophageal reflux disease, diabetes mellitus, and obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ DREAM, MEA112997/NCT01000506; MENSA, MEA115588/NCT01691521; SIRIUS, MEA115575/NCT01842607; MUSCA, 200862/NCT02281318.

Response to Mepolizumab Treatment in Patients with Severe Eosinophilic Asthma and Atopic Phenotypes.

PURPOSE: Improved understanding of characteristics that may influence treatment response across phenotypes may help guide treatment decisions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of MENSA, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT01691521). Patients aged ≥12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma received mepolizumab (75 mg intravenously or 100 mg subcutaneously) or placebo, plus standard of care, every 4 weeks for 32 weeks. Outcomes assessed were the annualized rate of clinically significant exacerbations and change from baseline in Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score. Subgroup analyses were performed by baseline blood eosinophil count (<150, ≥150-300, ≥300 cells/µL) within atopic subgroups (non-atopic [specific immunoglobulin E <0.35 kU/L], atopic [≥0.35-17.5 kU/L], strongly atopic [>17.5 kU/L]), and by house dust mite (HDM) sensitivity. RESULTS: Of 576 patients analyzed, 272 were non-atopic, 181 were atopic and 94 were strongly atopic; 29 had missing atopy data. In patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL, mepolizumab versus placebo reduced clinically significant exacerbations by 74%, 43% and 25% in the non-atopic, atopic and strongly atopic subgroups. Similar reductions were observed in all atopic subgroups in other blood eosinophil count categories where there were sufficient patient numbers for analysis, except for non-atopic patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of <150 cells/µL. Improvements in ACQ-5 scores of -0.75, -0.73 and -0.78 with mepolizumab versus placebo were observed in non-atopic, atopic and strongly atopic patients with blood eosinophil counts ≥300 cells/µL; consistent improvements in ACQ-5 were not observed in patients with blood eosinophil counts <150 or ≥150-300 cells/µL. Reductions in clinically significant exacerbations with mepolizumab versus placebo were also observed irrespective of sensitivity to HDMs. CONCLUSION: Mepolizumab was associated with a trend for reductions in clinically significant exacerbations and improved asthma control versus placebo in patients with severe eosinophilic asthma, irrespective of atopic status or HDM sensitivity.

Impact of baseline clinical asthma characteristics on the response to mepolizumab: a post hoc meta-analysis of two Phase III trials.

BACKGROUND: Severe asthma is associated with a broad range of phenotypes and clinical characteristics. This analysis assessed whether select baseline patient characteristics could prognosticate mepolizumab efficacy in severe eosinophilic asthma. METHODS: This was a post hoc meta-analysis of data from the Phase III MENSA (NCT01691521/MEA115588) and MUSCA (NCT02281318/200862) studies. Patients aged ≥ 12 years with severe eosinophilic asthma and a history of exacerbations were randomised to receive placebo (MENSA/MUSCA), mepolizumab 75 mg intravenously (MENSA) or 100 mg subcutaneously (SC) (MENSA/MUSCA) every 4 weeks for 32 (MENSA) or 24 (MUSCA) weeks. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of clinically significant exacerbations; other outcomes included the proportion of patients with no exacerbations and changes from baseline in pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ)-5 score. Analyses were performed by baseline age of asthma onset (< 18 years; 18-40 years; ≥ 40 years); lung function (% predicted FEV1 ≤ 60; 60-80; > 80); airway reversibility (reversible [≥ 12% change in FEV1]; non-reversible [< 12% change in FEV1]); perennial and/or seasonal allergen sensitivity (yes/no); asthma control (uncontrolled [ACQ-5 score ≥ 1.5]; partial/complete control [ACQ-5 score < 1.5]). RESULTS: Overall, 936 patients received mepolizumab 100 mg SC or placebo. Across age at asthma onset, lung function and airway reversibility subgroups, mepolizumab reduced the rate of clinically significant exacerbations by 49-63% versus placebo. Improvements in lung function, SGRQ total score and ACQ-5 score were also seen with mepolizumab versus placebo across most age and lung function subgroups. Clinically significant exacerbations were reduced with mepolizumab versus placebo irrespective of season or allergen sensitivity; SGRQ total and ACQ-5 scores were generally improved across seasons. CONCLUSIONS: Mepolizumab efficacy was consistent for patients with varying age at asthma onset, lung function, airway reversibility and allergen sensitivities at baseline. Our results indicate that mepolizumab is likely to be beneficial for patients with severe eosinophilic asthma with a broad range of baseline clinical characteristics; large-scale real-world studies are needed to confirm the external validity of these findings. Trial registration Post hoc meta-analysis of data from MENSA (NCT01691521/MEA115588) and MUSCA (NCT02281318/200862).

Association of depressive symptoms with health status and markers of uncontrolled severe asthma.

Background: There are limited data that describe the association between markers of asthma control and depressive symptoms in severe asthma. Objective: To evaluate the association between depressive symptoms and markers of asthma control in patients with uncontrolled severe eosinophilic asthma. Methods: Baseline data from the MENSA and SIRIUS studies (N = 681) of mepolizumab intervention in severe eosinophilic asthma was used. We analyzed the relationships between depressive symptom severity by using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and quality of life by using the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), asthma control questionnaire-5 (ACQ-5), polypharmacy, and sleep symptoms. Results: When compared with patients with less severe depressive symptoms, patients with more severe depressive symptoms were predominantly female (81% versus 54%), had a higher mean body mass index (30.56 versus 27.67 kg/m²), were more likely to have a blood eosinophil count of ≥300 cells/uL within the previous 12 months (81% versus 68%), and to have experienced a near-fatal asthma event (16% versus 7%). The mean SGRQ score was higher in the severe BDI-II category compared with the minimal depressive symptoms category, which indicated a worse quality of life (71.6 versus 41.4, p < 0.001). Eighty-nine percent of the patients in the severe BDI-II category had poorly controlled asthma (ACQ-5 score ≥ 1.5) compared with 63% in the minimal category (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Increased severity of depressive symptoms was associated with worse respiratory-related quality of life and asthma control in the patients with severe eosinophilic asthma. These findings highlight the need for a multidimensional approach for the management of uncontrolled asthma, including timely identification of depressive symptoms. Additional research is needed to further explore the interactions between the two common conditions.Clinical trials NCT01691521 and NCT01619508, www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Evaluation of clinical benefit from treatment with mepolizumab for patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis.

BACKGROUND: In a recent phase III trial (NCT02020889) 53% of mepolizumab-treated versus 19% of placebo-treated patients with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) achieved protocol-defined remission. OBJECTIVE: We sought to investigate post hoc the clinical benefit of mepolizumab in patients with EGPA using a comprehensive definition of benefit encompassing remission, oral glucocorticoid (OGC) dose reduction, and EGPA relapses. METHODS: The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel-group trial recruited patients with relapsing/refractory EGPA receiving stable OGCs (prednisolone/prednisone, ≥7.5-50 mg/d) for 4 or more weeks. Patients received 300 mg of subcutaneous mepolizumab or placebo every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Clinical benefit was defined post hoc as follows: remission at any time (2 definitions used), 50% or greater OGC dose reduction during weeks 48 to 52, or no EGPA relapses. The 2 remission definitions were Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score of 0 plus OGC dose of 4 mg/d or less (remission 1/clinical benefit 1) or 7.5 mg/d or less (remission 2/clinical benefit 2). Clinical benefit was assessed in all patients and among subgroups with a baseline blood eosinophil count of less than 150 cells/µL, baseline OGC dosage of greater than 20 mg/d, or weight of greater than 85 kg. RESULTS: With mepolizumab versus placebo, 78% versus 32% of patients experienced clinical benefit 1, and 87% versus 53% of patients experienced clinical benefit 2 (both P < .001). Significantly more patients experienced clinical benefit 1 with mepolizumab versus placebo in the blood eosinophil count less than 150 cells/µL subgroup (72% vs 43%, P = .033) and weight greater than 85 kg subgroup (68% vs 23%, P = .005); in the OGC greater than 20 mg/d subgroup, results were not significant but favored mepolizumab (60% vs 36%, P = .395). CONCLUSION: When a comprehensive definition of clinical benefit was applied to data from a randomized controlled trial, 78% to 87% of patients with EGPA experienced benefit with mepolizumab.

Mepolizumab or Placebo for Eosinophilic Granulomatosis with Polyangiitis.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis is an eosinophilic vasculitis. Mepolizumab, an anti-interleukin-5 monoclonal antibody, reduces blood eosinophil counts and may have value in the treatment of eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned participants with relapsing or refractory eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis who had received treatment for at least 4 weeks and were taking a stable prednisolone or prednisone dose to receive 300 mg of mepolizumab or placebo, administered subcutaneously every 4 weeks, plus standard care, for 52 weeks. The two primary end points were the accrued weeks of remission over a 52-week period, according to categorical quantification, and the proportion of participants in remission at both week 36 and week 48. Secondary end points included the time to first relapse and the average daily glucocorticoid dose (during weeks 48 through 52). The annualized relapse rate and safety were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 136 participants underwent randomization, with 68 participants assigned to receive mepolizumab and 68 to receive placebo. Mepolizumab treatment led to significantly more accrued weeks of remission than placebo (28% vs. 3% of the participants had ≥24 weeks of accrued remission; odds ratio, 5.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.68 to 13.03; P<0.001) and a higher percentage of participants in remission at both week 36 and week 48 (32% vs. 3%; odds ratio, 16.74; 95% CI, 3.61 to 77.56; P<0.001). Remission did not occur in 47% of the participants in the mepolizumab group versus 81% of those in the placebo group. The annualized relapse rate was 1.14 in the mepolizumab group, as compared with 2.27 in the placebo group (rate ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.70; P<0.001). A total of 44% of the participants in the mepolizumab group, as compared with 7% of those in the placebo group, had an average daily dose of prednisolone or prednisone of 4.0 mg or less per day during weeks 48 through 52 (odds ratio, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09 to 0.41; P<0.001). The safety profile of mepolizumab was similar to that observed in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: In participants with eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, mepolizumab resulted in significantly more weeks in remission and a higher proportion of participants in remission than did placebo, thus allowing for reduced glucocorticoid use. Even so, only approximately half the participants treated with mepolizumab had protocol-defined remission. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02020889 .).

Assessment of the efficacy and safety of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol delivered as a combination dry powder via a capsule-based inhaler and a multi-dose inhaler in patients with asthma.

BACKGROUND: In developing countries, there is a need for access to affordable inhaled respiratory medicines. This study tested the clinical non-inferiority of fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination (FSC) 50/250 µg Rotacaps®/Rotahaler® compared with FSC 50/250 µg Diskus®. METHODS: A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy study evaluated 12 weeks, twice daily treatment of FSC 50/250 µg administered using Rotacaps/Rotahaler or Diskus inhaler in a crossover design in patients with asthma (pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) 40%-85% of predicted, FEV1 reversibility ≥12%, prior stable dose with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) or ICS/long acting beta-agonist). The primary efficacy endpoint, change from baseline in trough morning FEV1 at Day 85, was analysed using a model for repeated measures analysis. The pre-defined criterion for non-inferiority was the lower limit of the CI (0.025, one-sided significance level) for the treatment difference (Rotacaps/Rotahaler-Diskus) in least squares (LS) mean change from baseline, being greater than -125 mL. Secondary endpoints included serial FEV1 measurements, morning peak expiratory flow (PEF), rescue medication use, day- and night-time asthma symptoms, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores, and serial cortisol measured over 12 h (area under the curve (AUC0-12)). RESULTS: Treatment with FSC 50/250 µg via Rotacaps/Rotahaler or Diskus resulted in a similar LS mean increase from baseline in trough FEV1 at Day 85 (231 mL and 203 mL respectively). The difference in the model-adjusted LS mean change was 28 mL (95% CI -24 mL, 80 mL), fulfilling the criterion for non-inferiority. Data for all secondary endpoints were similar for the two treatments, supporting the primary endpoint findings. Both treatments were well tolerated and demonstrated similar safety profiles. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the clinical non-inferiority of FSC 50/250 µg when administered using Rotacaps/Rotahaler compared with administration using Diskus in patients with asthma, and suggests there is no difference in the risk:benefit profile between the two FSC inhalers.

Safety of Repeated Open-Label Treatment Courses of Intravenous Ofatumumab, a Human Anti-CD20 Monoclonal Antibody, in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Results from Three Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the safety of ofatumumab retreatment in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Patients with active rheumatoid arthritis participating in two phase III trials (OFA110635 and OFA110634) and a phase II extension trial (OFA111752) received individualised open-label ofatumumab retreatment (700 mg X 2 intravenous infusions two weeks apart) ≥24 weeks following the first course and ≥16 weeks following further courses. Retreatment required evidence of clinical response followed by disease relapse. These studies were prematurely terminated by the sponsor to refocus development on subcutaneous delivery. Due to differences in study designs and populations, data are summarised separately for each study. RESULTS: 483 patients (243, 148 and 92 in OFA110635, OFA110634 and OFA111752 respectively) received up to 7 treatment courses of intravenous ofatumumab; cumulative duration of exposure was 463, 182 and 175 patient-years, respectively. Mean time between courses was 17-47 weeks. Ofatumumab induced a profound depletion of peripheral B-lymphocytes. Retreated patients derived benefit based on improvement in DAS28. Adverse events were reported for 93% (226/243), 91% (134/148) and 76% (70/92), serious adverse events for 18% (44/243), 20% (30/148) and 12% (11/92) and serious infections for 3% (8/243), 5% (7/148) and 1% (1/92) of patients in OFA110635, OFA110634 and OFA111752, respectively. The most common adverse events were infusion-related reactions during the first infusion of the first course (48-79%); serious infusion-related reactions were rare (<1% [1/243], 5% [8/148], and 1% [1/92] of patients). Two deaths occurred (fulminant hepatitis B virus infection and interstitial lung disease). CONCLUSIONS: Ofatumumab was generally well tolerated with no evidence of increased safety risks with multiple retreatments. Serious infections were uncommon and did not increase over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov 110635 ClinicalTrials.gov 110634 ClinicalTrials.gov 111752.

A randomized, crossover study to investigate the pharmacokinetics and safety of inhaled fluticasone furoate and umeclidinium, administered separately and in combination via dry powder inhaler in healthy adult volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: A combination of fluticasone furoate (FF) and umeclidinium (UMEC) has been considered for development for the treatment of asthma. The primary objectives were to investigate the plasma and urine pharmacokinetics (PK) of FF/UMEC in combination compared with FF and UMEC monotherapies. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, three-period crossover, single-center study in healthy volunteers assessed the PK of FF 400 mcg and UMEC 500 mcg administered separately and in combination (four inhalations of FF/UMEC 100/125 mcg, FF 100 mcg, or UMEC 125 mcg) via dual-strip dry powder inhaler. Subjects were randomized based on codes generated using a validated computerized system (Randall, GlaxoSmithKline). RESULTS: Eighteen subjects were enrolled; 17 received all three scheduled doses of study medication. Plasma FF and UMEC concentrations peaked at 0.5 and 0.08 h post-dose, respectively, for FF/UMEC and the monotherapies. FF and UMEC co-administration resulted in slightly lower or similar systemic exposure for both drugs versus the monotherapies. In post hoc sensitivity analyses (performed because two subjects administered inhalations incorrectly), the ratio of adjusted geometric means (maximum plasma concentration and area under the curve) was closer to unity than in the planned analyses. Cumulative urinary UMEC excretion (Ae) was similar for FF/UMEC and UMEC. Post hoc sensitivity analyses on Ae(0-24) suggested a small carryover effect but results were similar to those of the population as a whole. Urinary UMEC excretion following FF/UMEC was low (~1.5% over 24 h) and unlikely to have impacted upon PK comparisons. Three adverse events were reported; none were severe or led to withdrawal. There were no clinically significant effects on electrocardiogram, vital sign, or laboratory parameters. CONCLUSION: Fluticasone furoate and umeclidinium co-administration was well tolerated and was not associated with meaningful changes in systemic or urinary PK versus the monotherapies. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline.

Long-term safety of mepolizumab for the treatment of hypereosinophilic syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Hypereosinophilic syndromes (HESs) are chronic disorders that require long-term therapy to suppress eosinophilia and clinical manifestations. Corticosteroids are usually effective, yet many patients become corticosteroid refractory or develop corticosteroid toxicity. Mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal anti-IL-5 antibody, showed corticosteroid-sparing effects in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of FIP1L1/PDGFRA-negative, corticosteroid-responsive subjects with HESs. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated long-term safety and efficacy of mepolizumab (750 mg) in HES. METHODS: MHE100901 is an open-label extension study. The primary end point was the frequency of adverse events (AEs). Optimal dosing frequency, corticosteroid-sparing effect of mepolizumab, and development of antimepolizumab antibodies were also explored. RESULTS: Seventy-eight subjects received 1 to 66 mepolizumab infusions each (including mepolizumab infusions received in the placebo-controlled trial). Mean exposure was 251 weeks (range, 4-302 weeks). The most common dosing interval was 9 to 12 weeks. The incidence of AEs was 932 events per 100 subject-years in the first year, declining to 461 events per 100 subject-years after 48 months. Serious AEs, including 1 death, were reported by the investigator as possibly due to mepolizumab in 3 subjects. The median daily prednisone dose decreased from 20.0 to 0 mg in the first 24 weeks. The median average daily dose for all subjects over the course of the study was 1.8 mg. Sixty-two percent of subjects were prednisone free without other HES medications for ≥ 12 consecutive weeks. No neutralizing antibodies were detected. Twenty-four subjects withdrew before study completion for death (n = 4), lack of efficacy (n = 6), or other reasons. CONCLUSION: Mepolizumab was well tolerated and effective as a long-term corticosteroid-sparing agent in PDGFRA-negative HES.

Ofatumumab, a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, in biological-naive, rheumatoid arthritis patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous ofatumumab, a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody, in biological-naive, active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients despite methotrexate treatment. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study, active RA patients on stable methotrexate were randomly assigned to one course of two infusions of ofatumumab 700 mg (n=130) or placebo (n=130), 2 weeks apart. The primary endpoint was the ACR20 response at week 24. Secondary endpoints included ACR50/70, EULAR response, disease activity score based on 28 joints using C-reactive protein, adverse events (AE) and immunogenicity. RESULTS: At week 24, a greater proportion of patients on ofatumumab compared with placebo achieved an ACR20 response (50% vs 27%, p<0.001) and a good or moderate EULAR response (67% vs 41%, p<0.001). All other key secondary efficacy endpoints were significantly improved on ofatumumab. Efficacy observed by 8 weeks was sustained throughout the study. The most common AE for ofatumumab versus placebo were rash (21% vs <1%) and urticaria (12% vs <1%), mostly occurring on the first infusion day. Overall, first-dose infusion reactions were 68% for ofatumumab and 6% for placebo, mostly mild to moderate; second-dose infusion reactions markedly declined (<1% and 0%). Serious AE were reported in 5% of ofatumumab versus 3% of placebo patients. Infection rates were 32% and 26% (serious infections <1% and 2%), respectively. One death (interstitial lung disease), unrelated to study drug, was reported on ofatumumab. No antidrug antibodies were detected in ofatumumab patients. CONCLUSIONS: Ofatumumab significantly improved all clinical outcomes in biological-naive, active RA patients with no detectable immunogenicity at week 24. No unexpected safety findings were identified. Trial Registry clinical trials.gov registration number NCT00611455.