Video

PHILADELPHIA – An intravenous formulation of a calcitonin gene–related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibody showed efficacy for preventing chronic migraine headaches for 3 months in a dose-ranging, phase 3 trial with 1,072 patients.

In a separate study with 669 patients, a single IV dose of the antibody, eptinezumab, also significantly reduced the incidence of episodic migraine headaches during 3 months of follow-up, compared with placebo. And in both the chronic and episodic migraine studies a similar 3-month effect resulted from a second IV dose of the humanized antibody that binds the calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) ligand, thereby blocking the pathway, Laszlo L. Mechtler, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Eptinezumab follows the therapeutic approach already used by three Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody drugs that cut migraine headache recurrences by blocking the CGRP pathway by binding either the peptide ligand or its receptor: erenumab-aooe (Aimovig), fremanezumab-vfrm (Ajovy), and galcanezumab-gnlm (Emgality). Eptinezumab differs from the three approved CGRP antibodies by using an IV route of administration – the other three are delivered by subcutaneous injection – and by a 3-month dosing interval. Both erenumab-aooe and galcanezumab-gnlm are labeled for monthly administration only, while fremanezumab-vfrm is labeled for both monthly and once every 3 months dosing schedules.

The PROMISE-1 (A Multicenter Assessment of ALD403 in Frequent Episodic Migraine) trial randomized 669 patients with episodic migraine (defined as 4-14 headache days/month with at least 4 classifiable as migraine headache days) at 87 centers mostly in the United States and with some in Georgia. The PROMISE-2 (Evaluation of ALD403 (Eptinezumab) in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine) trial randomized 1,072 patients with chronic migraine (defined as a history of 15-26 headache days/month and with at least 8 of the days involving a migraine headache) at any of 145 study sites, many in the United States, in several countries.

In PROMISE-1, patients could receive as many as four serial infusions every 3 months, and up to two serial infusions in PROMISE-2, but the primary endpoint in both studies was the change in monthly migraine count from baseline during the 3 months following the first dosage.

Among patients with chronic migraine in PROMISE-2, the average monthly migraine number fell by 8.2 migraine days/month, compared with an average 5.6 monthly migraine days drop from baseline among placebo patients, which was a statistically significant difference for the higher dosage of eptinezumab tested, 300 mg. A 100-mg dose linked with an average 7.7 migraine days/month reduction, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo patients, reported Dr. Mechtler, professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and medical director of the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, and his associates.

Among patients with episodic migraine in PROMISE-1, the 300-mg dosage cut monthly migraines by an average 4.3 migraine headache days/month, compared with 3.2 in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Among patients who received the 100-mg dosage, the average cut was 3.9 migraine headache days/month, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo controls.

The researchers included no safety findings in their report, but in an interview Dr. Mechtler said that eptinezumab showed an excellent safety profile that was consistent with what’s been previously reported for the approved agents from this class. He cited the safety of the drugs in the class as a major feature of their clinical utility.

PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were sponsored by Alder BioPharmaceuticals, the company developing eptinezumab. Dr. Mechtler has been a speaker on behalf of Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Promius, Avanir, and Teva, and he has received research funding from Allergan, Autonomic Technologies, Boston Biomedical, and Teva.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mechtler LL et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:34, Abstract P12

PHILADELPHIA – An intravenous formulation of a calcitonin gene–related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibody showed efficacy for preventing chronic migraine headaches for 3 months in a dose-ranging, phase 3 trial with 1,072 patients.

In a separate study with 669 patients, a single IV dose of the antibody, eptinezumab, also significantly reduced the incidence of episodic migraine headaches during 3 months of follow-up, compared with placebo. And in both the chronic and episodic migraine studies a similar 3-month effect resulted from a second IV dose of the humanized antibody that binds the calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) ligand, thereby blocking the pathway, Laszlo L. Mechtler, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Eptinezumab follows the therapeutic approach already used by three Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody drugs that cut migraine headache recurrences by blocking the CGRP pathway by binding either the peptide ligand or its receptor: erenumab-aooe (Aimovig), fremanezumab-vfrm (Ajovy), and galcanezumab-gnlm (Emgality). Eptinezumab differs from the three approved CGRP antibodies by using an IV route of administration – the other three are delivered by subcutaneous injection – and by a 3-month dosing interval. Both erenumab-aooe and galcanezumab-gnlm are labeled for monthly administration only, while fremanezumab-vfrm is labeled for both monthly and once every 3 months dosing schedules.

The PROMISE-1 (A Multicenter Assessment of ALD403 in Frequent Episodic Migraine) trial randomized 669 patients with episodic migraine (defined as 4-14 headache days/month with at least 4 classifiable as migraine headache days) at 87 centers mostly in the United States and with some in Georgia. The PROMISE-2 (Evaluation of ALD403 (Eptinezumab) in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine) trial randomized 1,072 patients with chronic migraine (defined as a history of 15-26 headache days/month and with at least 8 of the days involving a migraine headache) at any of 145 study sites, many in the United States, in several countries.

In PROMISE-1, patients could receive as many as four serial infusions every 3 months, and up to two serial infusions in PROMISE-2, but the primary endpoint in both studies was the change in monthly migraine count from baseline during the 3 months following the first dosage.

Among patients with chronic migraine in PROMISE-2, the average monthly migraine number fell by 8.2 migraine days/month, compared with an average 5.6 monthly migraine days drop from baseline among placebo patients, which was a statistically significant difference for the higher dosage of eptinezumab tested, 300 mg. A 100-mg dose linked with an average 7.7 migraine days/month reduction, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo patients, reported Dr. Mechtler, professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and medical director of the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, and his associates.

Among patients with episodic migraine in PROMISE-1, the 300-mg dosage cut monthly migraines by an average 4.3 migraine headache days/month, compared with 3.2 in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Among patients who received the 100-mg dosage, the average cut was 3.9 migraine headache days/month, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo controls.

The researchers included no safety findings in their report, but in an interview Dr. Mechtler said that eptinezumab showed an excellent safety profile that was consistent with what’s been previously reported for the approved agents from this class. He cited the safety of the drugs in the class as a major feature of their clinical utility.

PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were sponsored by Alder BioPharmaceuticals, the company developing eptinezumab. Dr. Mechtler has been a speaker on behalf of Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Promius, Avanir, and Teva, and he has received research funding from Allergan, Autonomic Technologies, Boston Biomedical, and Teva.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mechtler LL et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:34, Abstract P12

PHILADELPHIA – An intravenous formulation of a calcitonin gene–related peptide inhibitor monoclonal antibody showed efficacy for preventing chronic migraine headaches for 3 months in a dose-ranging, phase 3 trial with 1,072 patients.

In a separate study with 669 patients, a single IV dose of the antibody, eptinezumab, also significantly reduced the incidence of episodic migraine headaches during 3 months of follow-up, compared with placebo. And in both the chronic and episodic migraine studies a similar 3-month effect resulted from a second IV dose of the humanized antibody that binds the calcitonin gene–related peptide (CGRP) ligand, thereby blocking the pathway, Laszlo L. Mechtler, MD, and his associates reported in a poster at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Eptinezumab follows the therapeutic approach already used by three Food and Drug Administration–approved monoclonal antibody drugs that cut migraine headache recurrences by blocking the CGRP pathway by binding either the peptide ligand or its receptor: erenumab-aooe (Aimovig), fremanezumab-vfrm (Ajovy), and galcanezumab-gnlm (Emgality). Eptinezumab differs from the three approved CGRP antibodies by using an IV route of administration – the other three are delivered by subcutaneous injection – and by a 3-month dosing interval. Both erenumab-aooe and galcanezumab-gnlm are labeled for monthly administration only, while fremanezumab-vfrm is labeled for both monthly and once every 3 months dosing schedules.

The PROMISE-1 (A Multicenter Assessment of ALD403 in Frequent Episodic Migraine) trial randomized 669 patients with episodic migraine (defined as 4-14 headache days/month with at least 4 classifiable as migraine headache days) at 87 centers mostly in the United States and with some in Georgia. The PROMISE-2 (Evaluation of ALD403 (Eptinezumab) in the Prevention of Chronic Migraine) trial randomized 1,072 patients with chronic migraine (defined as a history of 15-26 headache days/month and with at least 8 of the days involving a migraine headache) at any of 145 study sites, many in the United States, in several countries.

In PROMISE-1, patients could receive as many as four serial infusions every 3 months, and up to two serial infusions in PROMISE-2, but the primary endpoint in both studies was the change in monthly migraine count from baseline during the 3 months following the first dosage.

Among patients with chronic migraine in PROMISE-2, the average monthly migraine number fell by 8.2 migraine days/month, compared with an average 5.6 monthly migraine days drop from baseline among placebo patients, which was a statistically significant difference for the higher dosage of eptinezumab tested, 300 mg. A 100-mg dose linked with an average 7.7 migraine days/month reduction, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo patients, reported Dr. Mechtler, professor of neurology at the State University of New York at Buffalo and medical director of the Dent Neurologic Institute in Buffalo, and his associates.

Among patients with episodic migraine in PROMISE-1, the 300-mg dosage cut monthly migraines by an average 4.3 migraine headache days/month, compared with 3.2 in the placebo group, a statistically significant difference. Among patients who received the 100-mg dosage, the average cut was 3.9 migraine headache days/month, also a statistically significant difference from the placebo controls.

The researchers included no safety findings in their report, but in an interview Dr. Mechtler said that eptinezumab showed an excellent safety profile that was consistent with what’s been previously reported for the approved agents from this class. He cited the safety of the drugs in the class as a major feature of their clinical utility.

PROMISE-1 and PROMISE-2 were sponsored by Alder BioPharmaceuticals, the company developing eptinezumab. Dr. Mechtler has been a speaker on behalf of Allergan, Amgen/Novartis, Boston Biomedical, Promius, Avanir, and Teva, and he has received research funding from Allergan, Autonomic Technologies, Boston Biomedical, and Teva.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mechtler LL et al. Headache. 2019 June;59[S1]:34, Abstract P12

PHILADELPHIA – Nineteen percent of patients with migraine use opioids to treat migraine, according to a survey of more than 21,000 patients in 2018. People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.

To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.

The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.

“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.

Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.

There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.

Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.

Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Nineteen percent of patients with migraine use opioids to treat migraine, according to a survey of more than 21,000 patients in 2018. People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.

To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.

The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.

“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.

Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.

There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.

Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.

Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – Nineteen percent of patients with migraine use opioids to treat migraine, according to a survey of more than 21,000 patients in 2018. People with 4 or more migraine headache days per month are more likely to use opioids, compared with people with fewer migraine headache days per month, researchers said. Opioid use for migraine “remains alarmingly high,” the investigators said at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society.

Although opioid use for the treatment of migraine typically is discouraged, studies indicate that it is common. Evidence suggests that opioids may increase the risk of progression from episodic to chronic migraine.

To evaluate opioid use in people with migraine, Sait Ashina, MD, of Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, and the research colleagues analyzed data from 21,143 people with migraine who participated in the OVERCOME (Observational Survey of the Epidemiology, Treatment and Care of Migraine), a Web-based study of a representative U.S. sample. OVERCOME enrolled participants in the fall of 2018.

The researchers classified self-reported opioid use for migraine as current use in the past 12 months, former use, or never. Participants had a mean age of 42 years, and 74% were female. The researchers used a multivariable logistic regression model adjusted for age and sex in their analyses.

“Strikingly, we were able to find 19% of people with migraine were reporting current use of opioids,” Dr. Ashina said.

Among 12,299 patients with 0-3 migraine headache days per month, 59% were never, 26% former, and 15% current users of opioids for migraine. Among 8,844 patients with 4 or more migraine headache days per month, 44.9% were never, 31.2% former, and 23.9% current users of opioids for migraine.

There was an increased likelihood of opioid use for migraine in people with pain comorbidities such as back pain, neck pain, and fibromyalgia and in people with anxiety and depression.

Approximately 30%-40% of those who used opioids for migraine were using strong opioids, as defined by the World Health Organization, Dr. Ashina noted. Preliminary analyses indicate that patients tended to receive opioids in a primary care setting, he said.

Eli Lilly funded the OVERCOME study. Dr. Ashina has consulted for Novartis, Amgen, Promius, Supernus, Satsuma, and Allergan. He is on the Editorial Advisory Board for Neurology Reviews.

[email protected]

MADRID – Two major changes that improved RA management in recent years – the introduction of potent biologic and targeted synthetic drugs to control inflammatory disease, and the treat-to-target strategy – have also produced an unanticipated snag in the care patients receive. Their persistent comorbidities and their more atypical rheumatoid manifestations often go overlooked and untreated.

The situation has been dubbed “DAS blindness,” when clinicians caring for patients with RA are so focused on a patient’s disease activity score (DAS), measured by counting their swollen and tender joints (usually 28 joints to tally the DAS28 score), that they lose sight of other important features of a RA patient’s disease such as pain and fatigue, Ruth Williams, MBChB, said in an invited talk at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“There is so much focus on the DAS28 that people are blinded by it. Clinicians concentrate too much on the primary physical condition” of RA, “and they miss important functional, psychological, and social impacts of the disease,” said Dr. Williams, a general-practice physician who is also a long-time RA patient who works as a patient representative and RA researcher at King’s College London.

In Dr. William’s extended personal experience as an RA patient (she was first diagnosed in 1966 as a child), management of the disease changed dramatically with the relatively recent, widespread adoption of the DAS28 score in routine clinical practice in Europe and the United States, migrating from its initial use in research studies. Once her clinicians began to use the DAS28 “I felt that perhaps I wasn’t being seen anymore. It was just the biology of my disease being noted rather than me as an individual,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. Clinicians “need to discuss with patients what remission means to them, and their objectives” from treatment, because a patient’s treatment goals may go beyond just reducing the number of swollen or tender joints they total in the DAS28 assessment.

Rheumatologists also have begun to recognize this common disconnect between both the assessment and the antirheumatoid treatment that RA patients routinely receive, and the symptoms that cause problems for RA patients that are not directly tied to their inflammatory disease. Patients can present with remission-level responses in their tender and swollen joint counts and in their serum level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate but still score high on the patient global assessment (PGA) scale, a residual consequence of RA that places them out of remission range based on the 2011 “Boolean” criteria for RA remission in trials endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63[3]:373-86).

In a review of 411 RA patients who met three of the four ACR/EULAR criteria that collectively define remission, 61% missed on the PGA measure (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;71[10]:1702-5), noted Joan M. Bathon, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, in a talk during the Congress. Another review of 273 RA patients who missed on one of the four criteria showed 80% missing because of their PGA score (Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R221). The specific clinical features that triggered high PGAs in these patients were things like fibromyalgia, back pain, anxiety, depression, and rheumatoid activity in joints not included in the DAS28 score, Dr. Bathon noted. The PGA can have poor correlation with the other three measures, but that is a strength because it reflects different dimensions of RA that are important to patients. When the PGA is discordant with the other three measures of remission, it may not make sense to try to improve it by simply using more immunosuppressive treatment.

The solution to the dilemma of what remission target to aim for when treating to target is to apply common sense to existing guidelines and recommendations and tailor management to each patient, she concluded. “The worst thing we can do is to take criteria meant for clinical rials and for patients with average scores and apply them to every individual patient,” she said. Remission guidelines are good for large populations, “but we shouldn’t apply them to every single patient without thinking.”

A similar plea for thoughtful use of the treat-to-target model and immunomodulatory treatment came in a separate talk from Laure Gossec, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris.

The challenge of DAS28 is that it was a remission criteria developed by the ACR and EULAR to use in clinical trials that was coopted for use in routine practice. Despite that, Dr. Gossec believes that DAS28 largely succeeded in this transition. “The DAS28 performs well, it has good prognostic capacity and is widely used.” In her practice, Dr. Gossec relies on the DAS28 score as her primary tool to track disease status in RA patients. “It’s not perfect, but I’m familiar with it, and I work with it,” she said.

It’s undeniable, she acknowledged, that a high PGA often stands between a patient and remission. PGA “is hard to use to guide anti-inflammatory treatment. Many patients have high PGA scores even though they have no inflammation.” Discrepancies like this create a case for dual-treatment targets, both a low swollen and tender joint count and low PGA, as separate and equal treatment goals, Dr. Gossec said, an approach she and her associates proposed in a recent article (Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Mar;709[3]:369-78).

Dr. Williams had no disclosures. Dr. Bathon has been a consultant to AbbVie and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Gossec has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Two major changes that improved RA management in recent years – the introduction of potent biologic and targeted synthetic drugs to control inflammatory disease, and the treat-to-target strategy – have also produced an unanticipated snag in the care patients receive. Their persistent comorbidities and their more atypical rheumatoid manifestations often go overlooked and untreated.

The situation has been dubbed “DAS blindness,” when clinicians caring for patients with RA are so focused on a patient’s disease activity score (DAS), measured by counting their swollen and tender joints (usually 28 joints to tally the DAS28 score), that they lose sight of other important features of a RA patient’s disease such as pain and fatigue, Ruth Williams, MBChB, said in an invited talk at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“There is so much focus on the DAS28 that people are blinded by it. Clinicians concentrate too much on the primary physical condition” of RA, “and they miss important functional, psychological, and social impacts of the disease,” said Dr. Williams, a general-practice physician who is also a long-time RA patient who works as a patient representative and RA researcher at King’s College London.

In Dr. William’s extended personal experience as an RA patient (she was first diagnosed in 1966 as a child), management of the disease changed dramatically with the relatively recent, widespread adoption of the DAS28 score in routine clinical practice in Europe and the United States, migrating from its initial use in research studies. Once her clinicians began to use the DAS28 “I felt that perhaps I wasn’t being seen anymore. It was just the biology of my disease being noted rather than me as an individual,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. Clinicians “need to discuss with patients what remission means to them, and their objectives” from treatment, because a patient’s treatment goals may go beyond just reducing the number of swollen or tender joints they total in the DAS28 assessment.

Rheumatologists also have begun to recognize this common disconnect between both the assessment and the antirheumatoid treatment that RA patients routinely receive, and the symptoms that cause problems for RA patients that are not directly tied to their inflammatory disease. Patients can present with remission-level responses in their tender and swollen joint counts and in their serum level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate but still score high on the patient global assessment (PGA) scale, a residual consequence of RA that places them out of remission range based on the 2011 “Boolean” criteria for RA remission in trials endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63[3]:373-86).

In a review of 411 RA patients who met three of the four ACR/EULAR criteria that collectively define remission, 61% missed on the PGA measure (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;71[10]:1702-5), noted Joan M. Bathon, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, in a talk during the Congress. Another review of 273 RA patients who missed on one of the four criteria showed 80% missing because of their PGA score (Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R221). The specific clinical features that triggered high PGAs in these patients were things like fibromyalgia, back pain, anxiety, depression, and rheumatoid activity in joints not included in the DAS28 score, Dr. Bathon noted. The PGA can have poor correlation with the other three measures, but that is a strength because it reflects different dimensions of RA that are important to patients. When the PGA is discordant with the other three measures of remission, it may not make sense to try to improve it by simply using more immunosuppressive treatment.

The solution to the dilemma of what remission target to aim for when treating to target is to apply common sense to existing guidelines and recommendations and tailor management to each patient, she concluded. “The worst thing we can do is to take criteria meant for clinical rials and for patients with average scores and apply them to every individual patient,” she said. Remission guidelines are good for large populations, “but we shouldn’t apply them to every single patient without thinking.”

A similar plea for thoughtful use of the treat-to-target model and immunomodulatory treatment came in a separate talk from Laure Gossec, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris.

The challenge of DAS28 is that it was a remission criteria developed by the ACR and EULAR to use in clinical trials that was coopted for use in routine practice. Despite that, Dr. Gossec believes that DAS28 largely succeeded in this transition. “The DAS28 performs well, it has good prognostic capacity and is widely used.” In her practice, Dr. Gossec relies on the DAS28 score as her primary tool to track disease status in RA patients. “It’s not perfect, but I’m familiar with it, and I work with it,” she said.

It’s undeniable, she acknowledged, that a high PGA often stands between a patient and remission. PGA “is hard to use to guide anti-inflammatory treatment. Many patients have high PGA scores even though they have no inflammation.” Discrepancies like this create a case for dual-treatment targets, both a low swollen and tender joint count and low PGA, as separate and equal treatment goals, Dr. Gossec said, an approach she and her associates proposed in a recent article (Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Mar;709[3]:369-78).

Dr. Williams had no disclosures. Dr. Bathon has been a consultant to AbbVie and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Gossec has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies.

[email protected]

MADRID – Two major changes that improved RA management in recent years – the introduction of potent biologic and targeted synthetic drugs to control inflammatory disease, and the treat-to-target strategy – have also produced an unanticipated snag in the care patients receive. Their persistent comorbidities and their more atypical rheumatoid manifestations often go overlooked and untreated.

The situation has been dubbed “DAS blindness,” when clinicians caring for patients with RA are so focused on a patient’s disease activity score (DAS), measured by counting their swollen and tender joints (usually 28 joints to tally the DAS28 score), that they lose sight of other important features of a RA patient’s disease such as pain and fatigue, Ruth Williams, MBChB, said in an invited talk at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“There is so much focus on the DAS28 that people are blinded by it. Clinicians concentrate too much on the primary physical condition” of RA, “and they miss important functional, psychological, and social impacts of the disease,” said Dr. Williams, a general-practice physician who is also a long-time RA patient who works as a patient representative and RA researcher at King’s College London.

In Dr. William’s extended personal experience as an RA patient (she was first diagnosed in 1966 as a child), management of the disease changed dramatically with the relatively recent, widespread adoption of the DAS28 score in routine clinical practice in Europe and the United States, migrating from its initial use in research studies. Once her clinicians began to use the DAS28 “I felt that perhaps I wasn’t being seen anymore. It was just the biology of my disease being noted rather than me as an individual,” Dr. Williams said in an interview. Clinicians “need to discuss with patients what remission means to them, and their objectives” from treatment, because a patient’s treatment goals may go beyond just reducing the number of swollen or tender joints they total in the DAS28 assessment.

Rheumatologists also have begun to recognize this common disconnect between both the assessment and the antirheumatoid treatment that RA patients routinely receive, and the symptoms that cause problems for RA patients that are not directly tied to their inflammatory disease. Patients can present with remission-level responses in their tender and swollen joint counts and in their serum level of C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate but still score high on the patient global assessment (PGA) scale, a residual consequence of RA that places them out of remission range based on the 2011 “Boolean” criteria for RA remission in trials endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (Arthritis Rheum. 2011 Mar;63[3]:373-86).

In a review of 411 RA patients who met three of the four ACR/EULAR criteria that collectively define remission, 61% missed on the PGA measure (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;71[10]:1702-5), noted Joan M. Bathon, MD, professor of medicine and director of rheumatology at Columbia University, New York, in a talk during the Congress. Another review of 273 RA patients who missed on one of the four criteria showed 80% missing because of their PGA score (Arthritis Res Ther. 2013;15:R221). The specific clinical features that triggered high PGAs in these patients were things like fibromyalgia, back pain, anxiety, depression, and rheumatoid activity in joints not included in the DAS28 score, Dr. Bathon noted. The PGA can have poor correlation with the other three measures, but that is a strength because it reflects different dimensions of RA that are important to patients. When the PGA is discordant with the other three measures of remission, it may not make sense to try to improve it by simply using more immunosuppressive treatment.

The solution to the dilemma of what remission target to aim for when treating to target is to apply common sense to existing guidelines and recommendations and tailor management to each patient, she concluded. “The worst thing we can do is to take criteria meant for clinical rials and for patients with average scores and apply them to every individual patient,” she said. Remission guidelines are good for large populations, “but we shouldn’t apply them to every single patient without thinking.”

A similar plea for thoughtful use of the treat-to-target model and immunomodulatory treatment came in a separate talk from Laure Gossec, MD, a professor of rheumatology at Pitie-Salpétriere Hospital and Sorbonne University in Paris.

The challenge of DAS28 is that it was a remission criteria developed by the ACR and EULAR to use in clinical trials that was coopted for use in routine practice. Despite that, Dr. Gossec believes that DAS28 largely succeeded in this transition. “The DAS28 performs well, it has good prognostic capacity and is widely used.” In her practice, Dr. Gossec relies on the DAS28 score as her primary tool to track disease status in RA patients. “It’s not perfect, but I’m familiar with it, and I work with it,” she said.

It’s undeniable, she acknowledged, that a high PGA often stands between a patient and remission. PGA “is hard to use to guide anti-inflammatory treatment. Many patients have high PGA scores even though they have no inflammation.” Discrepancies like this create a case for dual-treatment targets, both a low swollen and tender joint count and low PGA, as separate and equal treatment goals, Dr. Gossec said, an approach she and her associates proposed in a recent article (Arthritis Care Res. 2018 Mar;709[3]:369-78).

Dr. Williams had no disclosures. Dr. Bathon has been a consultant to AbbVie and has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr. Gossec has been a consultant to and has received research funding from several companies.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – The headache field is not free of the gender bias that affects medicine in general, said Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, chief of the Division of Headache and Pain at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Women accrue credentials and are accorded respect as headache experts more slowly than men, she said. They are underrepresented among the speakers at headache conferences and are less likely than men to be invited to write editorials for peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, a significant proportion of female headache specialists experiences sexual harassment in their professional environments.

Bias also affects interactions between patients and headache specialists, said Dr. Loder. Regardless of their gender, patients expect female care providers to be sympathetic and understanding. If they perceive that a female physician does not sufficiently display these attributes, they often write critical reviews of them on the Internet. In contrast, male physicians are not expected to be particularly caring, and patients praise them highly when they are.

Recognition of these biases is increasing, however. Representation of women in professional societies and on conference programs will improve, and emerging codes of conduct will reduce sexual harassment, said Dr. Loder. Headache specialists can take various steps, such as offering recognition and encouragement, to make the field more welcoming to women and to other disadvantaged groups.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – The headache field is not free of the gender bias that affects medicine in general, said Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, chief of the Division of Headache and Pain at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Women accrue credentials and are accorded respect as headache experts more slowly than men, she said. They are underrepresented among the speakers at headache conferences and are less likely than men to be invited to write editorials for peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, a significant proportion of female headache specialists experiences sexual harassment in their professional environments.

Bias also affects interactions between patients and headache specialists, said Dr. Loder. Regardless of their gender, patients expect female care providers to be sympathetic and understanding. If they perceive that a female physician does not sufficiently display these attributes, they often write critical reviews of them on the Internet. In contrast, male physicians are not expected to be particularly caring, and patients praise them highly when they are.

Recognition of these biases is increasing, however. Representation of women in professional societies and on conference programs will improve, and emerging codes of conduct will reduce sexual harassment, said Dr. Loder. Headache specialists can take various steps, such as offering recognition and encouragement, to make the field more welcoming to women and to other disadvantaged groups.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – The headache field is not free of the gender bias that affects medicine in general, said Elizabeth W. Loder, MD, chief of the Division of Headache and Pain at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society. Women accrue credentials and are accorded respect as headache experts more slowly than men, she said. They are underrepresented among the speakers at headache conferences and are less likely than men to be invited to write editorials for peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, a significant proportion of female headache specialists experiences sexual harassment in their professional environments.

Bias also affects interactions between patients and headache specialists, said Dr. Loder. Regardless of their gender, patients expect female care providers to be sympathetic and understanding. If they perceive that a female physician does not sufficiently display these attributes, they often write critical reviews of them on the Internet. In contrast, male physicians are not expected to be particularly caring, and patients praise them highly when they are.

Recognition of these biases is increasing, however. Representation of women in professional societies and on conference programs will improve, and emerging codes of conduct will reduce sexual harassment, said Dr. Loder. Headache specialists can take various steps, such as offering recognition and encouragement, to make the field more welcoming to women and to other disadvantaged groups.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – Subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) daratumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according findings from a phase 3 trial.

In the COLUMBA trial, SC daratumumab proved noninferior to IV daratumumab with regard to overall response rate and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough).

The safety profiles of the two formulations were similar, although patients who received SC daratumumab had a lower rate of infusion-related reactions. SC daratumumab also had a lower treatment burden.

“The COLUMBA study shows that [SC daratumumab] can be used in every myeloma patient [as a] single agent or, maybe in the future, in combination with the different backbones,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, of University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain).

Dr. Mateos presented results from the COLUMBA trial at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Mateos cited a previous phase 1b study that had suggested that SC daratumumab might produce similar results as IV daratumumab (Blood. 2017;130:838) while providing a more convenient delivery method. She pointed out that infusions of IV daratumumab can last hours, while the SC formulation can be delivered in minutes.

The aim of the phase 3 COLUMBA study was to compare the IV and SC formulations head-to-head. The trial enrolled 522 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. They were randomized to receive daratumumab SC (n = 263) or IV (n = 259).

The median patient age was 68 years (range, 33-92 years) in the IV arm and 65 years (range, 42-84 years) in the SC arm. Patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy (range, 1-15 in the IV arm and 2-12 in the SC arm). Most patients were refractory to their last line of therapy – 85% in the IV arm and 80% in the SC arm – and most patients had standard-risk cytogenetics – 83% and 74%, respectively.

Treatment

Patients received SC daratumumab at 1,800 mg and IV daratumumab at 16 mg/kg. Both were given weekly for cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression.

The median duration of the first infusion was 421 minutes in the IV arm and 5 minutes in the SC arm. The median duration of the second infusion was 255 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively, and the median duration of subsequent infusions was 205 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively.

At a median follow-up of 7.46 months, 57% of patients in each arm had discontinued the study treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were progression – 44% of the IV arm and 43% of the SC arm – and adverse events (AEs) – 8% and 7%, respectively.

Safety

Dr. Mateos said the safety profiles of IV and SC daratumumab were comparable. However, infusion-related reactions were significantly less likely in the SC arm, occurring in 12.7% of those patients and 34.5% of patients in the IV arm (P less than .0001).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the IV arm and 46% of those in the SC arm. Rates of grade 5 AEs were 7% and 5%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (in the IV and SC arms, respectively) were anemia (14% and 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% for both), neutropenia (8% and 13%), lymphopenia (6% and 5%), and hypertension (6% and 3%).

Efficacy

One of the study’s primary endpoints was overall response rate, which was 37.1% in the IV arm and 41.1% in the SC arm (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.37; P less than .0001). This met the criteria for noninferiority, and overall response rates were comparable across all patient subgroups, Dr. Mateos noted.

The rates of complete response or stringent complete response were also comparable at 2.7% in the IV arm and 1.9% in the SC arm. Rates of very good partial response were 17.0% and 19.0%, respectively.

The study’s other primary endpoint was maximum Ctrough predose on day 1 of cycle 3. The ratio of maximum Ctrough for daratumumab SC over IV was 107.93% (90% CI, 95.74%-121.67%), which met the noninferiority criterion.

Survival outcomes were also similar between the IV and SC arms. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months and 5.6 months, respectively (P = .9258). The rate of overall survival at 6 months was 83.0% and 87.5%, respectively (P = .6032).

Considering these results together, Dr. Mateos and colleagues concluded that SC daratumumab is noninferior to IV daratumumab.

“[SC daratumumab] has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and patients treated with [SC daratumumab] reported higher satisfaction with therapy,” Dr. Mateos said.

The results support the use of flat-dose 1,800-mg SC daratumumab, which is comparable with the IV formulation, she said.

The COLUMBA trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mateos reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mateos MV et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8005.

CHICAGO – Subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) daratumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according findings from a phase 3 trial.

In the COLUMBA trial, SC daratumumab proved noninferior to IV daratumumab with regard to overall response rate and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough).

The safety profiles of the two formulations were similar, although patients who received SC daratumumab had a lower rate of infusion-related reactions. SC daratumumab also had a lower treatment burden.

“The COLUMBA study shows that [SC daratumumab] can be used in every myeloma patient [as a] single agent or, maybe in the future, in combination with the different backbones,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, of University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain).

Dr. Mateos presented results from the COLUMBA trial at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Mateos cited a previous phase 1b study that had suggested that SC daratumumab might produce similar results as IV daratumumab (Blood. 2017;130:838) while providing a more convenient delivery method. She pointed out that infusions of IV daratumumab can last hours, while the SC formulation can be delivered in minutes.

The aim of the phase 3 COLUMBA study was to compare the IV and SC formulations head-to-head. The trial enrolled 522 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. They were randomized to receive daratumumab SC (n = 263) or IV (n = 259).

The median patient age was 68 years (range, 33-92 years) in the IV arm and 65 years (range, 42-84 years) in the SC arm. Patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy (range, 1-15 in the IV arm and 2-12 in the SC arm). Most patients were refractory to their last line of therapy – 85% in the IV arm and 80% in the SC arm – and most patients had standard-risk cytogenetics – 83% and 74%, respectively.

Treatment

Patients received SC daratumumab at 1,800 mg and IV daratumumab at 16 mg/kg. Both were given weekly for cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression.

The median duration of the first infusion was 421 minutes in the IV arm and 5 minutes in the SC arm. The median duration of the second infusion was 255 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively, and the median duration of subsequent infusions was 205 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively.

At a median follow-up of 7.46 months, 57% of patients in each arm had discontinued the study treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were progression – 44% of the IV arm and 43% of the SC arm – and adverse events (AEs) – 8% and 7%, respectively.

Safety

Dr. Mateos said the safety profiles of IV and SC daratumumab were comparable. However, infusion-related reactions were significantly less likely in the SC arm, occurring in 12.7% of those patients and 34.5% of patients in the IV arm (P less than .0001).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the IV arm and 46% of those in the SC arm. Rates of grade 5 AEs were 7% and 5%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (in the IV and SC arms, respectively) were anemia (14% and 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% for both), neutropenia (8% and 13%), lymphopenia (6% and 5%), and hypertension (6% and 3%).

Efficacy

One of the study’s primary endpoints was overall response rate, which was 37.1% in the IV arm and 41.1% in the SC arm (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.37; P less than .0001). This met the criteria for noninferiority, and overall response rates were comparable across all patient subgroups, Dr. Mateos noted.

The rates of complete response or stringent complete response were also comparable at 2.7% in the IV arm and 1.9% in the SC arm. Rates of very good partial response were 17.0% and 19.0%, respectively.

The study’s other primary endpoint was maximum Ctrough predose on day 1 of cycle 3. The ratio of maximum Ctrough for daratumumab SC over IV was 107.93% (90% CI, 95.74%-121.67%), which met the noninferiority criterion.

Survival outcomes were also similar between the IV and SC arms. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months and 5.6 months, respectively (P = .9258). The rate of overall survival at 6 months was 83.0% and 87.5%, respectively (P = .6032).

Considering these results together, Dr. Mateos and colleagues concluded that SC daratumumab is noninferior to IV daratumumab.

“[SC daratumumab] has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and patients treated with [SC daratumumab] reported higher satisfaction with therapy,” Dr. Mateos said.

The results support the use of flat-dose 1,800-mg SC daratumumab, which is comparable with the IV formulation, she said.

The COLUMBA trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mateos reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mateos MV et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8005.

CHICAGO – Subcutaneous (SC) daratumumab is noninferior to intravenous (IV) daratumumab for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM), according findings from a phase 3 trial.

In the COLUMBA trial, SC daratumumab proved noninferior to IV daratumumab with regard to overall response rate and maximum trough concentration (Ctrough).

The safety profiles of the two formulations were similar, although patients who received SC daratumumab had a lower rate of infusion-related reactions. SC daratumumab also had a lower treatment burden.

“The COLUMBA study shows that [SC daratumumab] can be used in every myeloma patient [as a] single agent or, maybe in the future, in combination with the different backbones,” said Maria-Victoria Mateos, MD, PhD, of University Hospital of Salamanca (Spain).

Dr. Mateos presented results from the COLUMBA trial at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Dr. Mateos cited a previous phase 1b study that had suggested that SC daratumumab might produce similar results as IV daratumumab (Blood. 2017;130:838) while providing a more convenient delivery method. She pointed out that infusions of IV daratumumab can last hours, while the SC formulation can be delivered in minutes.

The aim of the phase 3 COLUMBA study was to compare the IV and SC formulations head-to-head. The trial enrolled 522 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. They were randomized to receive daratumumab SC (n = 263) or IV (n = 259).

The median patient age was 68 years (range, 33-92 years) in the IV arm and 65 years (range, 42-84 years) in the SC arm. Patients had received a median of four prior lines of therapy (range, 1-15 in the IV arm and 2-12 in the SC arm). Most patients were refractory to their last line of therapy – 85% in the IV arm and 80% in the SC arm – and most patients had standard-risk cytogenetics – 83% and 74%, respectively.

Treatment

Patients received SC daratumumab at 1,800 mg and IV daratumumab at 16 mg/kg. Both were given weekly for cycles 1-2, every 2 weeks for cycles 3-6, and every 4 weeks thereafter until disease progression.

The median duration of the first infusion was 421 minutes in the IV arm and 5 minutes in the SC arm. The median duration of the second infusion was 255 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively, and the median duration of subsequent infusions was 205 minutes and 5 minutes, respectively.

At a median follow-up of 7.46 months, 57% of patients in each arm had discontinued the study treatment. The most common reasons for discontinuation were progression – 44% of the IV arm and 43% of the SC arm – and adverse events (AEs) – 8% and 7%, respectively.

Safety

Dr. Mateos said the safety profiles of IV and SC daratumumab were comparable. However, infusion-related reactions were significantly less likely in the SC arm, occurring in 12.7% of those patients and 34.5% of patients in the IV arm (P less than .0001).

Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent AEs occurred in 49% of patients in the IV arm and 46% of those in the SC arm. Rates of grade 5 AEs were 7% and 5%, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 AEs (in the IV and SC arms, respectively) were anemia (14% and 13%), thrombocytopenia (14% for both), neutropenia (8% and 13%), lymphopenia (6% and 5%), and hypertension (6% and 3%).

Efficacy

One of the study’s primary endpoints was overall response rate, which was 37.1% in the IV arm and 41.1% in the SC arm (relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.37; P less than .0001). This met the criteria for noninferiority, and overall response rates were comparable across all patient subgroups, Dr. Mateos noted.

The rates of complete response or stringent complete response were also comparable at 2.7% in the IV arm and 1.9% in the SC arm. Rates of very good partial response were 17.0% and 19.0%, respectively.

The study’s other primary endpoint was maximum Ctrough predose on day 1 of cycle 3. The ratio of maximum Ctrough for daratumumab SC over IV was 107.93% (90% CI, 95.74%-121.67%), which met the noninferiority criterion.

Survival outcomes were also similar between the IV and SC arms. The median progression-free survival was 6.1 months and 5.6 months, respectively (P = .9258). The rate of overall survival at 6 months was 83.0% and 87.5%, respectively (P = .6032).

Considering these results together, Dr. Mateos and colleagues concluded that SC daratumumab is noninferior to IV daratumumab.

“[SC daratumumab] has a reduced treatment burden due to a considerably shorter administration duration, and patients treated with [SC daratumumab] reported higher satisfaction with therapy,” Dr. Mateos said.

The results support the use of flat-dose 1,800-mg SC daratumumab, which is comparable with the IV formulation, she said.

The COLUMBA trial was sponsored by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Mateos reported relationships with Amgen, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, and Takeda.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mateos MV et al. ASCO 2019, Abstract 8005.

MADRID – RSLV-132, a novel drug that eliminates circulating nucleic acids, improved the symptoms of mental fatigue in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled “proof-of-concept” study.

Vidyard Video

The mental component of fatigue on the Profile of Fatigue (PRO-F) scale improved by 1.53 points among the patients given RSLV-132, while there was a worsening of 0.06 points in the placebo group (P = .046). Scores range from 0 to 7 on the PRO-F.

There were also improvements in some patient-reported outcomes, namely the EULAR pSS Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and improvement of neuropsychological measures of cognitive function, but none were statistically significant. All of these outcomes, including fatigue, were secondary outcomes of the study.

“Fatigue is a major issue for patients with Sjögren’s syndrome,” Wan-Fai Ng, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Indeed, fatigue can be disabling in the majority of individuals, he added.

Currently, the best way to manage fatigue is to first ask about it, said Dr. Ng, who is professor of rheumatology at the Institute of Cellular Medicine at Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. He then checks for any underlying problem that could be better managed – sleep problems or anemia, for example – and optimizes treatment for any underlying disease. “I think many people would at least feel satisfied that people take the symptoms seriously.”

Dr. Ng and his coauthors investigated the effects of RSLV-132, a first-in-class human RNase fused to the human Fc domain of human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1, in the RESOLVE 132-04 study. This novel drug been designed to increase serum RNase activity to digest RNA-associated immune complexes, Dr. Ng and associates observed in their abstract. As a consequence of this, they say, activation of toll-like receptors and the production of interferon (IFN) is affected, as is B-cell proliferation and the production of autoantibodies – all mechanisms that are “key to pSS pathogenesis.”

The IFN pathway has been implicated in fatigue, Dr. Ng observed when he presented the RESOLVE 132-04 study’s findings, which involved 30 patients with pSS who had been treated for 3 months. Inclusion criteria were pSS as defined by the American-European Consensus Group 2002 criteria, anti-Ro antibody positivity, and increased expression of three IFN-regulated genes: HERC5, EPSTI1, and CMPK2. Exclusion criteria were the use of hydroxychloroquine, prednisolone at daily doses above 10 mg, and the use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive either 10 mg/kg of RSLV-132 (n = 20) or placebo (n = 8) at weeks 0, 1, 2, and then every fortnight until week 12. Dr. Ng noted that although 30 patients were randomized, two patients had dropped out in the placebo group before they could be “treated.”

The primary endpoint was the change in the blood cell gene expression or serum protein levels indicative of reduced inflammation. The results indicated reductions in noncoding RNA molecules in patients who received RSLV-132 versus placebo, “consistent with the mode of action of the molecule.” In addition, “the majority of inflammatory markers were reduced,” Dr. Ng said.

Another finding showed a nonsignificant trend for improvement of 0.8 units in the physical component in the RSLV-132 group, compared against 0.06 units with placebo (P = .142).

Patients who received RSLV-132 reduced the time needed to complete the Digital Symbol Substitution Test by 16.4 s, compared with an increase of 2.8 s for placebo (P = .024).

Similar trends were observed for ESSPRI and FACIT-F scores.

These are very early data and clearly a bigger study would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn, Dr. Ng said in an interview. What these data suggest is that “maybe there is some way that we could manage fatigue, and we just need to go and explore that.”

RSLV-132 has also been studied in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (Lupus. 2017;26:825-34).

The trial was sponsored by Resolve Therapeutics. Dr. Ng was an investigator in the trial and disclosed other research collaborations with electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. He also disclosed acting as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Source: Fisher B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(suppl 2):177, Abstract OP0202. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3098.

MADRID – RSLV-132, a novel drug that eliminates circulating nucleic acids, improved the symptoms of mental fatigue in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled “proof-of-concept” study.

Vidyard Video

The mental component of fatigue on the Profile of Fatigue (PRO-F) scale improved by 1.53 points among the patients given RSLV-132, while there was a worsening of 0.06 points in the placebo group (P = .046). Scores range from 0 to 7 on the PRO-F.

There were also improvements in some patient-reported outcomes, namely the EULAR pSS Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and improvement of neuropsychological measures of cognitive function, but none were statistically significant. All of these outcomes, including fatigue, were secondary outcomes of the study.

“Fatigue is a major issue for patients with Sjögren’s syndrome,” Wan-Fai Ng, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Indeed, fatigue can be disabling in the majority of individuals, he added.

Currently, the best way to manage fatigue is to first ask about it, said Dr. Ng, who is professor of rheumatology at the Institute of Cellular Medicine at Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. He then checks for any underlying problem that could be better managed – sleep problems or anemia, for example – and optimizes treatment for any underlying disease. “I think many people would at least feel satisfied that people take the symptoms seriously.”

Dr. Ng and his coauthors investigated the effects of RSLV-132, a first-in-class human RNase fused to the human Fc domain of human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1, in the RESOLVE 132-04 study. This novel drug been designed to increase serum RNase activity to digest RNA-associated immune complexes, Dr. Ng and associates observed in their abstract. As a consequence of this, they say, activation of toll-like receptors and the production of interferon (IFN) is affected, as is B-cell proliferation and the production of autoantibodies – all mechanisms that are “key to pSS pathogenesis.”

The IFN pathway has been implicated in fatigue, Dr. Ng observed when he presented the RESOLVE 132-04 study’s findings, which involved 30 patients with pSS who had been treated for 3 months. Inclusion criteria were pSS as defined by the American-European Consensus Group 2002 criteria, anti-Ro antibody positivity, and increased expression of three IFN-regulated genes: HERC5, EPSTI1, and CMPK2. Exclusion criteria were the use of hydroxychloroquine, prednisolone at daily doses above 10 mg, and the use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive either 10 mg/kg of RSLV-132 (n = 20) or placebo (n = 8) at weeks 0, 1, 2, and then every fortnight until week 12. Dr. Ng noted that although 30 patients were randomized, two patients had dropped out in the placebo group before they could be “treated.”

The primary endpoint was the change in the blood cell gene expression or serum protein levels indicative of reduced inflammation. The results indicated reductions in noncoding RNA molecules in patients who received RSLV-132 versus placebo, “consistent with the mode of action of the molecule.” In addition, “the majority of inflammatory markers were reduced,” Dr. Ng said.

Another finding showed a nonsignificant trend for improvement of 0.8 units in the physical component in the RSLV-132 group, compared against 0.06 units with placebo (P = .142).

Patients who received RSLV-132 reduced the time needed to complete the Digital Symbol Substitution Test by 16.4 s, compared with an increase of 2.8 s for placebo (P = .024).

Similar trends were observed for ESSPRI and FACIT-F scores.

These are very early data and clearly a bigger study would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn, Dr. Ng said in an interview. What these data suggest is that “maybe there is some way that we could manage fatigue, and we just need to go and explore that.”

RSLV-132 has also been studied in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (Lupus. 2017;26:825-34).

The trial was sponsored by Resolve Therapeutics. Dr. Ng was an investigator in the trial and disclosed other research collaborations with electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. He also disclosed acting as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Source: Fisher B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(suppl 2):177, Abstract OP0202. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3098.

MADRID – RSLV-132, a novel drug that eliminates circulating nucleic acids, improved the symptoms of mental fatigue in patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled “proof-of-concept” study.

Vidyard Video

The mental component of fatigue on the Profile of Fatigue (PRO-F) scale improved by 1.53 points among the patients given RSLV-132, while there was a worsening of 0.06 points in the placebo group (P = .046). Scores range from 0 to 7 on the PRO-F.

There were also improvements in some patient-reported outcomes, namely the EULAR pSS Patient Reported Index (ESSPRI) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and improvement of neuropsychological measures of cognitive function, but none were statistically significant. All of these outcomes, including fatigue, were secondary outcomes of the study.

“Fatigue is a major issue for patients with Sjögren’s syndrome,” Wan-Fai Ng, MBChB, PhD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology. Indeed, fatigue can be disabling in the majority of individuals, he added.

Currently, the best way to manage fatigue is to first ask about it, said Dr. Ng, who is professor of rheumatology at the Institute of Cellular Medicine at Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. He then checks for any underlying problem that could be better managed – sleep problems or anemia, for example – and optimizes treatment for any underlying disease. “I think many people would at least feel satisfied that people take the symptoms seriously.”

Dr. Ng and his coauthors investigated the effects of RSLV-132, a first-in-class human RNase fused to the human Fc domain of human immunoglobulin (Ig) G1, in the RESOLVE 132-04 study. This novel drug been designed to increase serum RNase activity to digest RNA-associated immune complexes, Dr. Ng and associates observed in their abstract. As a consequence of this, they say, activation of toll-like receptors and the production of interferon (IFN) is affected, as is B-cell proliferation and the production of autoantibodies – all mechanisms that are “key to pSS pathogenesis.”

The IFN pathway has been implicated in fatigue, Dr. Ng observed when he presented the RESOLVE 132-04 study’s findings, which involved 30 patients with pSS who had been treated for 3 months. Inclusion criteria were pSS as defined by the American-European Consensus Group 2002 criteria, anti-Ro antibody positivity, and increased expression of three IFN-regulated genes: HERC5, EPSTI1, and CMPK2. Exclusion criteria were the use of hydroxychloroquine, prednisolone at daily doses above 10 mg, and the use of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive either 10 mg/kg of RSLV-132 (n = 20) or placebo (n = 8) at weeks 0, 1, 2, and then every fortnight until week 12. Dr. Ng noted that although 30 patients were randomized, two patients had dropped out in the placebo group before they could be “treated.”

The primary endpoint was the change in the blood cell gene expression or serum protein levels indicative of reduced inflammation. The results indicated reductions in noncoding RNA molecules in patients who received RSLV-132 versus placebo, “consistent with the mode of action of the molecule.” In addition, “the majority of inflammatory markers were reduced,” Dr. Ng said.

Another finding showed a nonsignificant trend for improvement of 0.8 units in the physical component in the RSLV-132 group, compared against 0.06 units with placebo (P = .142).

Patients who received RSLV-132 reduced the time needed to complete the Digital Symbol Substitution Test by 16.4 s, compared with an increase of 2.8 s for placebo (P = .024).

Similar trends were observed for ESSPRI and FACIT-F scores.

These are very early data and clearly a bigger study would be needed before any conclusions could be drawn, Dr. Ng said in an interview. What these data suggest is that “maybe there is some way that we could manage fatigue, and we just need to go and explore that.”

RSLV-132 has also been studied in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (Lupus. 2017;26:825-34).

The trial was sponsored by Resolve Therapeutics. Dr. Ng was an investigator in the trial and disclosed other research collaborations with electroCore, GlaxoSmithKline, and AbbVie. He also disclosed acting as a consultant for Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, AbbVie, MedImmune, Pfizer, and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Source: Fisher B et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Jun;78(suppl 2):177, Abstract OP0202. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.3098.

MADRID – Response to rituximab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) might be dictated by the presence of a genetic variant that encodes the Fc gamma receptors (FcGRs), expressed on natural killer (NK) cells, according to findings from a single-center, longitudinal cohort study.

Vidyard Video

It is well known that not everyone with SLE will respond well to rituximab, but that some will, first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, explained in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although data from clinical trials with rituximab in this patient setting have been essentially negative, the methodology of those trials has since been disputed, he observed. Indeed, subsequent data (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1829-36) have suggested that as many as 80% of patients could achieve a response with rituximab, particularly if there is complete B-cell depletion.

Previous researchers (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:875-7) have shown that a polymorphism (158V) in the Fc gamma receptor IIIA (FCGR3A) gene is associated with the response to rituximab-based therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This gene is important for antibody-dependent cellular-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC).

The objective of the current study – an observational, prospective, longitudinal cohort study conducted in Leeds (England) – was therefore to see if the FCGR3A-158V polymorphism might influence response in patients with SLE.

“We were trying to find pretreatment biomarkers that could predict response to rituximab in SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof explained.

For the study, 85 patients who were treated with rituximab were assessed. The cohort was predominantly female (96%), with a mean age of 40 years. All of the patients had antinuclear antibodies, with just over half having anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, and two-thirds having extractable nuclear antigens. One-third had low complement (C3/C4) levels.

Complete B-cell depletion occurred in 63% of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele, a significantly higher rate than the 40% observed among those with 158 FF genotype (odds ratio, 2.73; P = .041). A significantly higher percentage of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele also achieved a major BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) response when compared against patients with the 158 FF variant (48% vs. 23%), with an odds ratio of 3.06 (P = .033).

Rituximab’s effect on NK cell-mediated B-cell killing may have played a key role in treatment response. Carrying the FCGR3A-158V allele was associated with greater degranulation activity versus the 158 FF variant.

Lastly, patients were more likely to remain on treatment with rituximab over a 10-year period if they had the FCGR3A-158V allele, compared with the 158 FF variant.

“These data suggest one mechanism by which patients with SLE might become resistant to the effects of rituximab, and could be used to guide therapy in the future,” Dr. Md Yusof suggested.

“Once this finding is validated, the clinical implication is that this genetic testing could be done prior to rituximab to identify those who will respond to therapy,” he postulated. “People with SLE who have this genetic variant with high affinity for rituximab are the ones that are better suited for rituximab therapy,” he added, otherwise a different CD20-directed antibody or alternative B-cell blockade therapies should be used.

The U.K. National Institute for Health Research funded the study. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest to disclose; some coauthors disclosed ties to Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, among other companies.

SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1069-70. Abstract SAT0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.6919.

MADRID – Response to rituximab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) might be dictated by the presence of a genetic variant that encodes the Fc gamma receptors (FcGRs), expressed on natural killer (NK) cells, according to findings from a single-center, longitudinal cohort study.

Vidyard Video

It is well known that not everyone with SLE will respond well to rituximab, but that some will, first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, explained in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although data from clinical trials with rituximab in this patient setting have been essentially negative, the methodology of those trials has since been disputed, he observed. Indeed, subsequent data (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1829-36) have suggested that as many as 80% of patients could achieve a response with rituximab, particularly if there is complete B-cell depletion.

Previous researchers (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:875-7) have shown that a polymorphism (158V) in the Fc gamma receptor IIIA (FCGR3A) gene is associated with the response to rituximab-based therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This gene is important for antibody-dependent cellular-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC).

The objective of the current study – an observational, prospective, longitudinal cohort study conducted in Leeds (England) – was therefore to see if the FCGR3A-158V polymorphism might influence response in patients with SLE.

“We were trying to find pretreatment biomarkers that could predict response to rituximab in SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof explained.

For the study, 85 patients who were treated with rituximab were assessed. The cohort was predominantly female (96%), with a mean age of 40 years. All of the patients had antinuclear antibodies, with just over half having anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, and two-thirds having extractable nuclear antigens. One-third had low complement (C3/C4) levels.

Complete B-cell depletion occurred in 63% of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele, a significantly higher rate than the 40% observed among those with 158 FF genotype (odds ratio, 2.73; P = .041). A significantly higher percentage of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele also achieved a major BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) response when compared against patients with the 158 FF variant (48% vs. 23%), with an odds ratio of 3.06 (P = .033).

Rituximab’s effect on NK cell-mediated B-cell killing may have played a key role in treatment response. Carrying the FCGR3A-158V allele was associated with greater degranulation activity versus the 158 FF variant.

Lastly, patients were more likely to remain on treatment with rituximab over a 10-year period if they had the FCGR3A-158V allele, compared with the 158 FF variant.

“These data suggest one mechanism by which patients with SLE might become resistant to the effects of rituximab, and could be used to guide therapy in the future,” Dr. Md Yusof suggested.

“Once this finding is validated, the clinical implication is that this genetic testing could be done prior to rituximab to identify those who will respond to therapy,” he postulated. “People with SLE who have this genetic variant with high affinity for rituximab are the ones that are better suited for rituximab therapy,” he added, otherwise a different CD20-directed antibody or alternative B-cell blockade therapies should be used.

The U.K. National Institute for Health Research funded the study. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest to disclose; some coauthors disclosed ties to Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, among other companies.

SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1069-70. Abstract SAT0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.6919.

MADRID – Response to rituximab in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) might be dictated by the presence of a genetic variant that encodes the Fc gamma receptors (FcGRs), expressed on natural killer (NK) cells, according to findings from a single-center, longitudinal cohort study.

Vidyard Video

It is well known that not everyone with SLE will respond well to rituximab, but that some will, first author Md Yuzaiful Md Yusof, MBChB, PhD, explained in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although data from clinical trials with rituximab in this patient setting have been essentially negative, the methodology of those trials has since been disputed, he observed. Indeed, subsequent data (Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76:1829-36) have suggested that as many as 80% of patients could achieve a response with rituximab, particularly if there is complete B-cell depletion.

Previous researchers (Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:875-7) have shown that a polymorphism (158V) in the Fc gamma receptor IIIA (FCGR3A) gene is associated with the response to rituximab-based therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This gene is important for antibody-dependent cellular-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC).

The objective of the current study – an observational, prospective, longitudinal cohort study conducted in Leeds (England) – was therefore to see if the FCGR3A-158V polymorphism might influence response in patients with SLE.

“We were trying to find pretreatment biomarkers that could predict response to rituximab in SLE,” Dr. Md Yusof explained.

For the study, 85 patients who were treated with rituximab were assessed. The cohort was predominantly female (96%), with a mean age of 40 years. All of the patients had antinuclear antibodies, with just over half having anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies, and two-thirds having extractable nuclear antigens. One-third had low complement (C3/C4) levels.

Complete B-cell depletion occurred in 63% of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele, a significantly higher rate than the 40% observed among those with 158 FF genotype (odds ratio, 2.73; P = .041). A significantly higher percentage of patients with the FCGR3A-158V allele also achieved a major BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) response when compared against patients with the 158 FF variant (48% vs. 23%), with an odds ratio of 3.06 (P = .033).

Rituximab’s effect on NK cell-mediated B-cell killing may have played a key role in treatment response. Carrying the FCGR3A-158V allele was associated with greater degranulation activity versus the 158 FF variant.

Lastly, patients were more likely to remain on treatment with rituximab over a 10-year period if they had the FCGR3A-158V allele, compared with the 158 FF variant.

“These data suggest one mechanism by which patients with SLE might become resistant to the effects of rituximab, and could be used to guide therapy in the future,” Dr. Md Yusof suggested.

“Once this finding is validated, the clinical implication is that this genetic testing could be done prior to rituximab to identify those who will respond to therapy,” he postulated. “People with SLE who have this genetic variant with high affinity for rituximab are the ones that are better suited for rituximab therapy,” he added, otherwise a different CD20-directed antibody or alternative B-cell blockade therapies should be used.

The U.K. National Institute for Health Research funded the study. Dr. Md Yusof had no conflicts of interest to disclose; some coauthors disclosed ties to Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca, among other companies.

SOURCE: Md Yusof MY et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):1069-70. Abstract SAT0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.6919.

MADRID – Tanezumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor that is under development to treat osteoarthritis pain, met most of the coprimary efficacy endpoints set for the drug in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.

At the end of a 24-week, double-blind treatment period, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and WOMAC physical function subscale scores were significantly improved, compared with placebo in the two tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) dose groups.

The least squares (ls) mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain scores were –2.24 for placebo, –2.70 for tanezumab 2.5 mg, and –2.85 for tanezumab 5 mg (P less than or equal to .01 and P less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo).

The ls mean change from baseline in WOMAC physical function scores were a respective –2.11, –2.70, and –2.82 (P less than or equal to .001 for both vs. placebo).

The coprimary endpoint of patients’ global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) was also significantly improved with tanezumab 5 mg (–0.90; P less than or equal to .05) but not 2.5 mg (–0.82) versus placebo (–0.72).

As the 2.5-mg dose of tanezumab didn’t meet one of the three coprimary endpoints, further hypothesis testing was not possible, but exploratory findings suggested that tanezumab at 2.5 mg or 5 mg yielded higher proportions of patients with reductions from baseline in WOMAC pain scores when compared against placebo. This was the case for reductions of at least 30% (65.6%, 68.7%, 56.6%, respectively), 50% (45.4%, 47.9%, 33.8%), or 70% (21.3%, 23.2%, 17.8%).

“I think that we have now a lot of studies with tanezumab showing a significant effect on hip and knee OA pain and function, so we have the studies in order to have the drug on the market,” study first author Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, of Saint-Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université in Paris, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Of course, because of the safety issue with rapid progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), what we are discussing now is: ‘For which patients will there be an optimal benefit-to-risk?’ So, it’s now more a discussion around the population of patients who can benefit the most with the drug,” Dr. Berenbaum added.

A possible link between the use of tanezumab and a risk for developing RPOA was first suggested by preclinical and early clinical trial data, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place partial holds on its clinical development in 2010, and again in 2012.

However, Dr. Berenbaum noted that a “mitigation plan” had been put in place for the phase 3 program to try to lower the likelihood of RPOA. This included: lowering the dose of the drug used and delivering it subcutaneously rather than intravenously; not prescribing it with NSAIDs and testing its possible effects and safety in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with no known risk factors for the potentially very serious adverse event.

“Based on this mitigation plan, the risk of rapid progressive osteoarthritis has considerably decreased,” Dr. Berenbaum observed. Indeed, in the phase 3 study he presented at the meeting, he said that around 2% of patients developed RPOA, which is “exactly in line with what has already been shown.” RPOA was reported in none of the placebo-treated patients, in 1.4% of those treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg, and in 2.8% in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg.

However, a “striking” finding of the current study was that despite the small increase in RPOA seen, there was no difference between the tanezumab and placebo groups in the number of patients needing total joint replacement (TJR). The percentages of patients undergoing at least one TJR was 6.7% in the placebo group, 7.8% in the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, and 7.0% in the tanezumab 5-mg group.

The joint safety events seen in the study, including TJRs, were adjudicated as being part of the normal progression of OA in the majority (73.4%) of cases. Other joint events of note were one case of subchondral insufficiency fracture occurring in a patient treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and one case of primary osteonecrosis in a patient treated with tanezumab 5 mg.

During his presentation of the findings in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Dr. Berenbaum noted that this was a difficult-to-treat population of patients. All 849 patients who had been recruited had moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and had a history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to treatment with acetaminophen, oral NSAIDs, and tramadol and were also not responding to, or unwilling to take, opioid painkillers. Patients had to have no radiographic evidence of specified bone conditions, including RPOA.

Patients had been treated with subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or 5 mg (n = 284) or placebo (n = 282) at baseline, week 8, and week 16, with the three coprimary efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24.


Discussing the risk-to-benefit ratio of the drug after his presentation, Dr. Berenbaum said: “You have to keep in mind that, first, it was in very difficult-to-treat patients, compared to the other trials in the field of OA symptoms.”

He added: “Second, is that compared to the other trials, this one was able to include patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4, meaning that this is a more serious population,” and third, “when you look at the responders – WOMAC 30%, 50%, 70% – there is a strong difference in terms of responders.”

Dr. Berenbaum and his coauthors noted on the poster that accompanied the late-breaking oral presentation that “an active-controlled study will provide data to further characterize the risk-benefit of tanezumab in patients with OA.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Dr. Berenbaum disclosed receiving research funding through his institution from Pfizer and acting as a consultant to, and speaker for, the company as well as multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors of the study also disclosed research funding or consultancy agreements with Pfizer or Eli Lilly or were employees of the companies.

SOURCE: Berenbaum F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):262-4. Abstract LB0007, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8660

MADRID – Tanezumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor that is under development to treat osteoarthritis pain, met most of the coprimary efficacy endpoints set for the drug in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.

At the end of a 24-week, double-blind treatment period, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and WOMAC physical function subscale scores were significantly improved, compared with placebo in the two tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) dose groups.

The least squares (ls) mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain scores were –2.24 for placebo, –2.70 for tanezumab 2.5 mg, and –2.85 for tanezumab 5 mg (P less than or equal to .01 and P less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo).

The ls mean change from baseline in WOMAC physical function scores were a respective –2.11, –2.70, and –2.82 (P less than or equal to .001 for both vs. placebo).

The coprimary endpoint of patients’ global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) was also significantly improved with tanezumab 5 mg (–0.90; P less than or equal to .05) but not 2.5 mg (–0.82) versus placebo (–0.72).

As the 2.5-mg dose of tanezumab didn’t meet one of the three coprimary endpoints, further hypothesis testing was not possible, but exploratory findings suggested that tanezumab at 2.5 mg or 5 mg yielded higher proportions of patients with reductions from baseline in WOMAC pain scores when compared against placebo. This was the case for reductions of at least 30% (65.6%, 68.7%, 56.6%, respectively), 50% (45.4%, 47.9%, 33.8%), or 70% (21.3%, 23.2%, 17.8%).

“I think that we have now a lot of studies with tanezumab showing a significant effect on hip and knee OA pain and function, so we have the studies in order to have the drug on the market,” study first author Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, of Saint-Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université in Paris, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Of course, because of the safety issue with rapid progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), what we are discussing now is: ‘For which patients will there be an optimal benefit-to-risk?’ So, it’s now more a discussion around the population of patients who can benefit the most with the drug,” Dr. Berenbaum added.

A possible link between the use of tanezumab and a risk for developing RPOA was first suggested by preclinical and early clinical trial data, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place partial holds on its clinical development in 2010, and again in 2012.

However, Dr. Berenbaum noted that a “mitigation plan” had been put in place for the phase 3 program to try to lower the likelihood of RPOA. This included: lowering the dose of the drug used and delivering it subcutaneously rather than intravenously; not prescribing it with NSAIDs and testing its possible effects and safety in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with no known risk factors for the potentially very serious adverse event.

“Based on this mitigation plan, the risk of rapid progressive osteoarthritis has considerably decreased,” Dr. Berenbaum observed. Indeed, in the phase 3 study he presented at the meeting, he said that around 2% of patients developed RPOA, which is “exactly in line with what has already been shown.” RPOA was reported in none of the placebo-treated patients, in 1.4% of those treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg, and in 2.8% in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg.

However, a “striking” finding of the current study was that despite the small increase in RPOA seen, there was no difference between the tanezumab and placebo groups in the number of patients needing total joint replacement (TJR). The percentages of patients undergoing at least one TJR was 6.7% in the placebo group, 7.8% in the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, and 7.0% in the tanezumab 5-mg group.

The joint safety events seen in the study, including TJRs, were adjudicated as being part of the normal progression of OA in the majority (73.4%) of cases. Other joint events of note were one case of subchondral insufficiency fracture occurring in a patient treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and one case of primary osteonecrosis in a patient treated with tanezumab 5 mg.

During his presentation of the findings in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Dr. Berenbaum noted that this was a difficult-to-treat population of patients. All 849 patients who had been recruited had moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and had a history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to treatment with acetaminophen, oral NSAIDs, and tramadol and were also not responding to, or unwilling to take, opioid painkillers. Patients had to have no radiographic evidence of specified bone conditions, including RPOA.

Patients had been treated with subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or 5 mg (n = 284) or placebo (n = 282) at baseline, week 8, and week 16, with the three coprimary efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24.


Discussing the risk-to-benefit ratio of the drug after his presentation, Dr. Berenbaum said: “You have to keep in mind that, first, it was in very difficult-to-treat patients, compared to the other trials in the field of OA symptoms.”

He added: “Second, is that compared to the other trials, this one was able to include patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4, meaning that this is a more serious population,” and third, “when you look at the responders – WOMAC 30%, 50%, 70% – there is a strong difference in terms of responders.”

Dr. Berenbaum and his coauthors noted on the poster that accompanied the late-breaking oral presentation that “an active-controlled study will provide data to further characterize the risk-benefit of tanezumab in patients with OA.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Dr. Berenbaum disclosed receiving research funding through his institution from Pfizer and acting as a consultant to, and speaker for, the company as well as multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors of the study also disclosed research funding or consultancy agreements with Pfizer or Eli Lilly or were employees of the companies.

SOURCE: Berenbaum F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):262-4. Abstract LB0007, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8660

MADRID – Tanezumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor that is under development to treat osteoarthritis pain, met most of the coprimary efficacy endpoints set for the drug in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.

At the end of a 24-week, double-blind treatment period, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and WOMAC physical function subscale scores were significantly improved, compared with placebo in the two tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) dose groups.

The least squares (ls) mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain scores were –2.24 for placebo, –2.70 for tanezumab 2.5 mg, and –2.85 for tanezumab 5 mg (P less than or equal to .01 and P less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo).

The ls mean change from baseline in WOMAC physical function scores were a respective –2.11, –2.70, and –2.82 (P less than or equal to .001 for both vs. placebo).

The coprimary endpoint of patients’ global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) was also significantly improved with tanezumab 5 mg (–0.90; P less than or equal to .05) but not 2.5 mg (–0.82) versus placebo (–0.72).

As the 2.5-mg dose of tanezumab didn’t meet one of the three coprimary endpoints, further hypothesis testing was not possible, but exploratory findings suggested that tanezumab at 2.5 mg or 5 mg yielded higher proportions of patients with reductions from baseline in WOMAC pain scores when compared against placebo. This was the case for reductions of at least 30% (65.6%, 68.7%, 56.6%, respectively), 50% (45.4%, 47.9%, 33.8%), or 70% (21.3%, 23.2%, 17.8%).

“I think that we have now a lot of studies with tanezumab showing a significant effect on hip and knee OA pain and function, so we have the studies in order to have the drug on the market,” study first author Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, of Saint-Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université in Paris, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Of course, because of the safety issue with rapid progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), what we are discussing now is: ‘For which patients will there be an optimal benefit-to-risk?’ So, it’s now more a discussion around the population of patients who can benefit the most with the drug,” Dr. Berenbaum added.

A possible link between the use of tanezumab and a risk for developing RPOA was first suggested by preclinical and early clinical trial data, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place partial holds on its clinical development in 2010, and again in 2012.

However, Dr. Berenbaum noted that a “mitigation plan” had been put in place for the phase 3 program to try to lower the likelihood of RPOA. This included: lowering the dose of the drug used and delivering it subcutaneously rather than intravenously; not prescribing it with NSAIDs and testing its possible effects and safety in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with no known risk factors for the potentially very serious adverse event.

“Based on this mitigation plan, the risk of rapid progressive osteoarthritis has considerably decreased,” Dr. Berenbaum observed. Indeed, in the phase 3 study he presented at the meeting, he said that around 2% of patients developed RPOA, which is “exactly in line with what has already been shown.” RPOA was reported in none of the placebo-treated patients, in 1.4% of those treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg, and in 2.8% in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg.

However, a “striking” finding of the current study was that despite the small increase in RPOA seen, there was no difference between the tanezumab and placebo groups in the number of patients needing total joint replacement (TJR). The percentages of patients undergoing at least one TJR was 6.7% in the placebo group, 7.8% in the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, and 7.0% in the tanezumab 5-mg group.

The joint safety events seen in the study, including TJRs, were adjudicated as being part of the normal progression of OA in the majority (73.4%) of cases. Other joint events of note were one case of subchondral insufficiency fracture occurring in a patient treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and one case of primary osteonecrosis in a patient treated with tanezumab 5 mg.

During his presentation of the findings in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Dr. Berenbaum noted that this was a difficult-to-treat population of patients. All 849 patients who had been recruited had moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and had a history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to treatment with acetaminophen, oral NSAIDs, and tramadol and were also not responding to, or unwilling to take, opioid painkillers. Patients had to have no radiographic evidence of specified bone conditions, including RPOA.

Patients had been treated with subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or 5 mg (n = 284) or placebo (n = 282) at baseline, week 8, and week 16, with the three coprimary efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24.


Discussing the risk-to-benefit ratio of the drug after his presentation, Dr. Berenbaum said: “You have to keep in mind that, first, it was in very difficult-to-treat patients, compared to the other trials in the field of OA symptoms.”

He added: “Second, is that compared to the other trials, this one was able to include patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4, meaning that this is a more serious population,” and third, “when you look at the responders – WOMAC 30%, 50%, 70% – there is a strong difference in terms of responders.”

Dr. Berenbaum and his coauthors noted on the poster that accompanied the late-breaking oral presentation that “an active-controlled study will provide data to further characterize the risk-benefit of tanezumab in patients with OA.”

The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Dr. Berenbaum disclosed receiving research funding through his institution from Pfizer and acting as a consultant to, and speaker for, the company as well as multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors of the study also disclosed research funding or consultancy agreements with Pfizer or Eli Lilly or were employees of the companies.

SOURCE: Berenbaum F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):262-4. Abstract LB0007, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8660

MADRID – Tocilizumab (Actemra) preserved lung function in patients with early systemic sclerosis (SSc), according to a secondary endpoint analysis of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled focuSSced trial.

Vidyard Video

After 48 weeks, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with tocilizumab than placebo experienced any decline in lung function from baseline (50.5% versus 70.3% (P = .015), as defined by the percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC). When only patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) were considered, the respective percentages were 51.7% and 75.5% (P = .003).

In SSc-ILD patients, a clinically meaningful decline of 10% or more of the %pFVC in lung function was seen in 24.5% given placebo but in just 8.6% of those treated with tocilizumab.

“ILD is a major complication of scleroderma; it has high morbidity and mortality ... and it’s largely irreversible,” Dinesh Khanna, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this day and age, when we treat ILD, we wait for a patient to develop clinical ILD,” added Dr. Khanna, director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clinical ILD can be defined by symptoms, abnormal pulmonary function tests, and marked abnormalities on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. He indicated that if improving ILD was not possible, then the next best thing would be to stabilize the disease and ensure there was no worsening in lung function.

As yet, there are no disease-modifying treatments available to treat SSc but there are “ample data that interleukin-6 plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma,” Dr. Khanna observed. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor.

Data from the phase 2 faSScinate trial showed initial promise for the drug in SSc where a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in skin thickening was seen, and the results had hinted at a possible benefit on lung function (Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387:2630-40).

However, in the phase 3 focuSSced trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to week 48 modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between tocilizumab and placebo, which was the primary endpoint. The least square mean change in mRSS was –6.14 for tocilizumab and –4.41 for placebo (P = .0983).

A total of 205 patients with SSc were studied and randomized, 1:1 in a double-blind fashion, to receive either a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 162 mg tocilizumab or a weekly subcutaneous placebo injection for 48 weeks.

For inclusion in the study, patients had to have SSc that met American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and be diagnosed less than 60 months previously. Patients had to have an mRSS of 10-35 units and active disease with one or more of the following: C-reactive protein of 6 mg/L or higher; erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 28 mm/h or higher; and platelet count of330 x 10⁹ L.


“What was astonishing in the trial was that every patient had HRCT at baseline and at the end of the study,” Dr. Khanna reported. These scans showed that 64% of patients had evidence of ILD at baseline and that those treated with tocilizumab had less evidence of fibrosis at week 48 versus placebo, indicating a stabilization rather than worsening of disease.

A time to treatment failure analysis also favored tocilizumab over placebo, but there were no significant changes in patient-reported outcomes.

Dr. Khanna’s slides stated that “given that the primary endpoint for mRSS was not met, all other P values are presented for information purposes only and cannot be considered statistically significant despite the strength of the evidence.” During the Q&A after his presentation, he noted that it was unlikely that the study’s sponsors (Roche/Genentech) will now pursue a license for tocilizumab in SSc.

Nevertheless, Dr. Khanna concluded, “we have the opportunity, based on these data, to treat these patients early on, where you can preserve the lung function, which is a paradigm shift versus waiting for the lung function to decline, become clinically meaningful, significant, and then treat this patient population.”

Roche/Genentech sponsored the study. Dr. Khanna acts as a consultant to Roche/Genentech and eight other pharmaceutical companies. He owns stock in Eicos Sciences.

SOURCE: Khanna D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):202-3. Abstract OP0245, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.2120

MADRID – Tocilizumab (Actemra) preserved lung function in patients with early systemic sclerosis (SSc), according to a secondary endpoint analysis of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled focuSSced trial.

Vidyard Video

After 48 weeks, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with tocilizumab than placebo experienced any decline in lung function from baseline (50.5% versus 70.3% (P = .015), as defined by the percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC). When only patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) were considered, the respective percentages were 51.7% and 75.5% (P = .003).

In SSc-ILD patients, a clinically meaningful decline of 10% or more of the %pFVC in lung function was seen in 24.5% given placebo but in just 8.6% of those treated with tocilizumab.

“ILD is a major complication of scleroderma; it has high morbidity and mortality ... and it’s largely irreversible,” Dinesh Khanna, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this day and age, when we treat ILD, we wait for a patient to develop clinical ILD,” added Dr. Khanna, director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clinical ILD can be defined by symptoms, abnormal pulmonary function tests, and marked abnormalities on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. He indicated that if improving ILD was not possible, then the next best thing would be to stabilize the disease and ensure there was no worsening in lung function.

As yet, there are no disease-modifying treatments available to treat SSc but there are “ample data that interleukin-6 plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma,” Dr. Khanna observed. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor.

Data from the phase 2 faSScinate trial showed initial promise for the drug in SSc where a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in skin thickening was seen, and the results had hinted at a possible benefit on lung function (Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387:2630-40).

However, in the phase 3 focuSSced trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to week 48 modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between tocilizumab and placebo, which was the primary endpoint. The least square mean change in mRSS was –6.14 for tocilizumab and –4.41 for placebo (P = .0983).

A total of 205 patients with SSc were studied and randomized, 1:1 in a double-blind fashion, to receive either a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 162 mg tocilizumab or a weekly subcutaneous placebo injection for 48 weeks.

For inclusion in the study, patients had to have SSc that met American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and be diagnosed less than 60 months previously. Patients had to have an mRSS of 10-35 units and active disease with one or more of the following: C-reactive protein of 6 mg/L or higher; erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 28 mm/h or higher; and platelet count of330 x 10⁹ L.


“What was astonishing in the trial was that every patient had HRCT at baseline and at the end of the study,” Dr. Khanna reported. These scans showed that 64% of patients had evidence of ILD at baseline and that those treated with tocilizumab had less evidence of fibrosis at week 48 versus placebo, indicating a stabilization rather than worsening of disease.

A time to treatment failure analysis also favored tocilizumab over placebo, but there were no significant changes in patient-reported outcomes.

Dr. Khanna’s slides stated that “given that the primary endpoint for mRSS was not met, all other P values are presented for information purposes only and cannot be considered statistically significant despite the strength of the evidence.” During the Q&A after his presentation, he noted that it was unlikely that the study’s sponsors (Roche/Genentech) will now pursue a license for tocilizumab in SSc.

Nevertheless, Dr. Khanna concluded, “we have the opportunity, based on these data, to treat these patients early on, where you can preserve the lung function, which is a paradigm shift versus waiting for the lung function to decline, become clinically meaningful, significant, and then treat this patient population.”

Roche/Genentech sponsored the study. Dr. Khanna acts as a consultant to Roche/Genentech and eight other pharmaceutical companies. He owns stock in Eicos Sciences.

SOURCE: Khanna D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):202-3. Abstract OP0245, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.2120

MADRID – Tocilizumab (Actemra) preserved lung function in patients with early systemic sclerosis (SSc), according to a secondary endpoint analysis of the phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled focuSSced trial.

Vidyard Video

After 48 weeks, a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with tocilizumab than placebo experienced any decline in lung function from baseline (50.5% versus 70.3% (P = .015), as defined by the percentage increase in predicted forced vital capacity (%pFVC). When only patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) were considered, the respective percentages were 51.7% and 75.5% (P = .003).

In SSc-ILD patients, a clinically meaningful decline of 10% or more of the %pFVC in lung function was seen in 24.5% given placebo but in just 8.6% of those treated with tocilizumab.

“ILD is a major complication of scleroderma; it has high morbidity and mortality ... and it’s largely irreversible,” Dinesh Khanna, MD, said at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“In this day and age, when we treat ILD, we wait for a patient to develop clinical ILD,” added Dr. Khanna, director of the scleroderma program at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Clinical ILD can be defined by symptoms, abnormal pulmonary function tests, and marked abnormalities on high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scans. He indicated that if improving ILD was not possible, then the next best thing would be to stabilize the disease and ensure there was no worsening in lung function.

As yet, there are no disease-modifying treatments available to treat SSc but there are “ample data that interleukin-6 plays a very important role in the pathogenesis of scleroderma,” Dr. Khanna observed. Tocilizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody against the interleukin-6 receptor.

Data from the phase 2 faSScinate trial showed initial promise for the drug in SSc where a numerical, but not statistically significant, improvement in skin thickening was seen, and the results had hinted at a possible benefit on lung function (Lancet. 2016 Jun 25;387:2630-40).

However, in the phase 3 focuSSced trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the change from baseline to week 48 modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) between tocilizumab and placebo, which was the primary endpoint. The least square mean change in mRSS was –6.14 for tocilizumab and –4.41 for placebo (P = .0983).

A total of 205 patients with SSc were studied and randomized, 1:1 in a double-blind fashion, to receive either a once-weekly, subcutaneous dose of 162 mg tocilizumab or a weekly subcutaneous placebo injection for 48 weeks.

For inclusion in the study, patients had to have SSc that met American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) criteria and be diagnosed less than 60 months previously. Patients had to have an mRSS of 10-35 units and active disease with one or more of the following: C-reactive protein of 6 mg/L or higher; erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 28 mm/h or higher; and platelet count of330 x 10⁹ L.


“What was astonishing in the trial was that every patient had HRCT at baseline and at the end of the study,” Dr. Khanna reported. These scans showed that 64% of patients had evidence of ILD at baseline and that those treated with tocilizumab had less evidence of fibrosis at week 48 versus placebo, indicating a stabilization rather than worsening of disease.

A time to treatment failure analysis also favored tocilizumab over placebo, but there were no significant changes in patient-reported outcomes.

Dr. Khanna’s slides stated that “given that the primary endpoint for mRSS was not met, all other P values are presented for information purposes only and cannot be considered statistically significant despite the strength of the evidence.” During the Q&A after his presentation, he noted that it was unlikely that the study’s sponsors (Roche/Genentech) will now pursue a license for tocilizumab in SSc.

Nevertheless, Dr. Khanna concluded, “we have the opportunity, based on these data, to treat these patients early on, where you can preserve the lung function, which is a paradigm shift versus waiting for the lung function to decline, become clinically meaningful, significant, and then treat this patient population.”

Roche/Genentech sponsored the study. Dr. Khanna acts as a consultant to Roche/Genentech and eight other pharmaceutical companies. He owns stock in Eicos Sciences.

SOURCE: Khanna D et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):202-3. Abstract OP0245, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.2120

MADRID – Electrically stimulating the vagus nerve produced clinically meaningful responses in disease activity measures in patients with refractory RA in a small safety study.

A minimal clinically important difference in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 12 weeks was achieved or exceeded by 5 out of 10 patients; with 2 patients achieving DAS28-CRP–defined remission.

The disease activity scores also were paired with MRI scans and showed, in a handful of individuals, that there was improvement in erosions in those with a clinical response. Greater reductions in proinflammatory cytokines – interleukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor – were seen with neurostimulation, compared with a sham control group.

“The goal here was to use electrical stimulation to modify or modulate, and improve the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis,” Mark C. Genovese, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The reason for choosing refractory patients is, one, there’s a clear unmet need, but two, because this was a first-in-human study using a novel microregulatory device stimulating the vagus nerve, we thought the benefits-to-risk ratio was most appropriate for its first trial in patients with refractory disease,” explained Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and director of the rheumatology clinic in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He added: “Over time, if the device proves successful for modulating disease, one can see it potentially being used earlier in the disease. Whether it is developed as a stand-alone or used as an adjunct on additional therapy will have to be determined based on both its efficacy and its safety.”

Neurostimulation is a novel concept in rheumatology but has been used with success in other areas of medicine – including epilepsy and depression – using electrical pulses instead of drugs. The idea behind it is that it stimulates the inflammatory reflex that modulates multiple the inflammatory pathways. Essentially, it’s thought that electrically stimulating the vagus nerve sends signals to the spleen where T-lymphocytes then signal to other immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to temper their production of proinflammatory cytokines and other mediators.

“Unlike traditional immunosuppressive biologics that may be specifically targeting one inflammatory process, by suppressing the inflammatory reflex we believe we can suppress a variety of inflammatory cytokines in the region of between 30% and 70%,” Dr. Genovese said at a press briefing.

Data from a 12-week, open-label study (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:8284-9) have already shown that the approach works in patients with refractory RA (n = 17). Once-daily electrical vagus nerve stimulation using an existing device made for treating epilepsy showed that clinically meaningful changes in DAS28-CRP could be achieved through TNF suppression. The effects on systemic TNF release lasted for around 24-48 hours after stimulation.

For the current study, a much smaller, leadless, investigational neurostimulation device was used. Called a MicroRegulator (SetPoint Medical), it is about 1 inch long, less than 2 cc in total volume, and is surgically implanted by a neurosurgeon at the top of the vagus nerve. When activated through an iPad app by the health care professional, it sends electrical impulses down the vagus nerve. The device’s battery is charged externally and wirelessly a few minutes each week. Dr. Genovese noted that the device needs to be turned on for only 60 seconds at a time to have an effect and that patients may feel a vibration but this was not reported in the study as an adverse event.

Results of the first in-human study with the device were presented by Dr. Genovese during the late-breaking clinical trials session at the meeting. He described how a total of 14 patients had the device implanted, the first 3 of whom received once-daily, open-label neurostimulation. The remaining 11 patients were randomized to either once-daily or four-times-daily neurostimulation via the device, or to receive sham therapy in which the device was implanted but not switched on. The patients had moderate to severe RA, defined as four or more tender joints, four or more swollen joints, and a CDAI score greater than 10, plus they had radiologically active disease and an insufficient response to at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with differing mechanisms of action.

All patients went through the same schedule of device charging and they did not know if they were in the active or sham groups. At the end of the study, patients had the option to continue in a long-term safety extension phase, have the device switched off, or could have it surgically removed.

“This trial was specifically a pilot trial to assess the MicroRegulator from a safety standpoint,” Dr. Genovese noted, but it also was designed to “help understand whether or not there was going to be clinical efficacy and applicability.”

While “there were no device or treatment-related serious adverse events,” there were some “surgical complications associated with the initial procedure.” One patient experienced paralysis of the left vocal cord during implantation that later resolved, and others experienced the following: Horner’s syndrome, tenderness and swelling at the surgical site, acute postoperative pain, and rash and pruritus. That said, there were no withdrawals from the study due to adverse events.

Commenting in a press release issued by the European League Against Rheumatism, Thomas Dörner, MD, of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said, “This is a really exciting development. For many patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, current treatments don’t work, or aren’t tolerated. These results open the door to a novel approach to treating not only rheumatoid arthritis, but other chronic inflammatory diseases. This is certainly an area for further study.”

The study was sponsored by SetPoint Medical. Dr. Genovese disclosed receiving consulting fees from and having contracts with/grants with the company and acting as a consultant to Galvani and Vorso. He has also received research support from and served as a consultant to Sanofi/Genzyme, Genentech/Roche, and R-Pharm. Dr. Dörner was not involved in the study and commented as part of his role as the chairperson of the EULAR Scientific Program Committee.

SOURCE: Genovese M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019; 78(Suppl 2):264. Abstract LB0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8716

MADRID – Electrically stimulating the vagus nerve produced clinically meaningful responses in disease activity measures in patients with refractory RA in a small safety study.

A minimal clinically important difference in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 12 weeks was achieved or exceeded by 5 out of 10 patients; with 2 patients achieving DAS28-CRP–defined remission.

The disease activity scores also were paired with MRI scans and showed, in a handful of individuals, that there was improvement in erosions in those with a clinical response. Greater reductions in proinflammatory cytokines – interleukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor – were seen with neurostimulation, compared with a sham control group.

“The goal here was to use electrical stimulation to modify or modulate, and improve the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis,” Mark C. Genovese, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The reason for choosing refractory patients is, one, there’s a clear unmet need, but two, because this was a first-in-human study using a novel microregulatory device stimulating the vagus nerve, we thought the benefits-to-risk ratio was most appropriate for its first trial in patients with refractory disease,” explained Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and director of the rheumatology clinic in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He added: “Over time, if the device proves successful for modulating disease, one can see it potentially being used earlier in the disease. Whether it is developed as a stand-alone or used as an adjunct on additional therapy will have to be determined based on both its efficacy and its safety.”

Neurostimulation is a novel concept in rheumatology but has been used with success in other areas of medicine – including epilepsy and depression – using electrical pulses instead of drugs. The idea behind it is that it stimulates the inflammatory reflex that modulates multiple the inflammatory pathways. Essentially, it’s thought that electrically stimulating the vagus nerve sends signals to the spleen where T-lymphocytes then signal to other immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to temper their production of proinflammatory cytokines and other mediators.

“Unlike traditional immunosuppressive biologics that may be specifically targeting one inflammatory process, by suppressing the inflammatory reflex we believe we can suppress a variety of inflammatory cytokines in the region of between 30% and 70%,” Dr. Genovese said at a press briefing.

Data from a 12-week, open-label study (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:8284-9) have already shown that the approach works in patients with refractory RA (n = 17). Once-daily electrical vagus nerve stimulation using an existing device made for treating epilepsy showed that clinically meaningful changes in DAS28-CRP could be achieved through TNF suppression. The effects on systemic TNF release lasted for around 24-48 hours after stimulation.

For the current study, a much smaller, leadless, investigational neurostimulation device was used. Called a MicroRegulator (SetPoint Medical), it is about 1 inch long, less than 2 cc in total volume, and is surgically implanted by a neurosurgeon at the top of the vagus nerve. When activated through an iPad app by the health care professional, it sends electrical impulses down the vagus nerve. The device’s battery is charged externally and wirelessly a few minutes each week. Dr. Genovese noted that the device needs to be turned on for only 60 seconds at a time to have an effect and that patients may feel a vibration but this was not reported in the study as an adverse event.

Results of the first in-human study with the device were presented by Dr. Genovese during the late-breaking clinical trials session at the meeting. He described how a total of 14 patients had the device implanted, the first 3 of whom received once-daily, open-label neurostimulation. The remaining 11 patients were randomized to either once-daily or four-times-daily neurostimulation via the device, or to receive sham therapy in which the device was implanted but not switched on. The patients had moderate to severe RA, defined as four or more tender joints, four or more swollen joints, and a CDAI score greater than 10, plus they had radiologically active disease and an insufficient response to at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with differing mechanisms of action.

All patients went through the same schedule of device charging and they did not know if they were in the active or sham groups. At the end of the study, patients had the option to continue in a long-term safety extension phase, have the device switched off, or could have it surgically removed.

“This trial was specifically a pilot trial to assess the MicroRegulator from a safety standpoint,” Dr. Genovese noted, but it also was designed to “help understand whether or not there was going to be clinical efficacy and applicability.”

While “there were no device or treatment-related serious adverse events,” there were some “surgical complications associated with the initial procedure.” One patient experienced paralysis of the left vocal cord during implantation that later resolved, and others experienced the following: Horner’s syndrome, tenderness and swelling at the surgical site, acute postoperative pain, and rash and pruritus. That said, there were no withdrawals from the study due to adverse events.

Commenting in a press release issued by the European League Against Rheumatism, Thomas Dörner, MD, of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said, “This is a really exciting development. For many patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, current treatments don’t work, or aren’t tolerated. These results open the door to a novel approach to treating not only rheumatoid arthritis, but other chronic inflammatory diseases. This is certainly an area for further study.”

The study was sponsored by SetPoint Medical. Dr. Genovese disclosed receiving consulting fees from and having contracts with/grants with the company and acting as a consultant to Galvani and Vorso. He has also received research support from and served as a consultant to Sanofi/Genzyme, Genentech/Roche, and R-Pharm. Dr. Dörner was not involved in the study and commented as part of his role as the chairperson of the EULAR Scientific Program Committee.

SOURCE: Genovese M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019; 78(Suppl 2):264. Abstract LB0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8716

MADRID – Electrically stimulating the vagus nerve produced clinically meaningful responses in disease activity measures in patients with refractory RA in a small safety study.

A minimal clinically important difference in the 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) at 12 weeks was achieved or exceeded by 5 out of 10 patients; with 2 patients achieving DAS28-CRP–defined remission.

The disease activity scores also were paired with MRI scans and showed, in a handful of individuals, that there was improvement in erosions in those with a clinical response. Greater reductions in proinflammatory cytokines – interleukin (IL)-1-beta, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, and tumor necrosis factor – were seen with neurostimulation, compared with a sham control group.

“The goal here was to use electrical stimulation to modify or modulate, and improve the treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis,” Mark C. Genovese, MD, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“The reason for choosing refractory patients is, one, there’s a clear unmet need, but two, because this was a first-in-human study using a novel microregulatory device stimulating the vagus nerve, we thought the benefits-to-risk ratio was most appropriate for its first trial in patients with refractory disease,” explained Dr. Genovese, professor of medicine and director of the rheumatology clinic in the division of immunology and rheumatology at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He added: “Over time, if the device proves successful for modulating disease, one can see it potentially being used earlier in the disease. Whether it is developed as a stand-alone or used as an adjunct on additional therapy will have to be determined based on both its efficacy and its safety.”

Neurostimulation is a novel concept in rheumatology but has been used with success in other areas of medicine – including epilepsy and depression – using electrical pulses instead of drugs. The idea behind it is that it stimulates the inflammatory reflex that modulates multiple the inflammatory pathways. Essentially, it’s thought that electrically stimulating the vagus nerve sends signals to the spleen where T-lymphocytes then signal to other immune cells, such as macrophages and monocytes, to temper their production of proinflammatory cytokines and other mediators.

“Unlike traditional immunosuppressive biologics that may be specifically targeting one inflammatory process, by suppressing the inflammatory reflex we believe we can suppress a variety of inflammatory cytokines in the region of between 30% and 70%,” Dr. Genovese said at a press briefing.

Data from a 12-week, open-label study (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016;113:8284-9) have already shown that the approach works in patients with refractory RA (n = 17). Once-daily electrical vagus nerve stimulation using an existing device made for treating epilepsy showed that clinically meaningful changes in DAS28-CRP could be achieved through TNF suppression. The effects on systemic TNF release lasted for around 24-48 hours after stimulation.

For the current study, a much smaller, leadless, investigational neurostimulation device was used. Called a MicroRegulator (SetPoint Medical), it is about 1 inch long, less than 2 cc in total volume, and is surgically implanted by a neurosurgeon at the top of the vagus nerve. When activated through an iPad app by the health care professional, it sends electrical impulses down the vagus nerve. The device’s battery is charged externally and wirelessly a few minutes each week. Dr. Genovese noted that the device needs to be turned on for only 60 seconds at a time to have an effect and that patients may feel a vibration but this was not reported in the study as an adverse event.

Results of the first in-human study with the device were presented by Dr. Genovese during the late-breaking clinical trials session at the meeting. He described how a total of 14 patients had the device implanted, the first 3 of whom received once-daily, open-label neurostimulation. The remaining 11 patients were randomized to either once-daily or four-times-daily neurostimulation via the device, or to receive sham therapy in which the device was implanted but not switched on. The patients had moderate to severe RA, defined as four or more tender joints, four or more swollen joints, and a CDAI score greater than 10, plus they had radiologically active disease and an insufficient response to at least two biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with differing mechanisms of action.

All patients went through the same schedule of device charging and they did not know if they were in the active or sham groups. At the end of the study, patients had the option to continue in a long-term safety extension phase, have the device switched off, or could have it surgically removed.

“This trial was specifically a pilot trial to assess the MicroRegulator from a safety standpoint,” Dr. Genovese noted, but it also was designed to “help understand whether or not there was going to be clinical efficacy and applicability.”

While “there were no device or treatment-related serious adverse events,” there were some “surgical complications associated with the initial procedure.” One patient experienced paralysis of the left vocal cord during implantation that later resolved, and others experienced the following: Horner’s syndrome, tenderness and swelling at the surgical site, acute postoperative pain, and rash and pruritus. That said, there were no withdrawals from the study due to adverse events.

Commenting in a press release issued by the European League Against Rheumatism, Thomas Dörner, MD, of Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, said, “This is a really exciting development. For many patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, current treatments don’t work, or aren’t tolerated. These results open the door to a novel approach to treating not only rheumatoid arthritis, but other chronic inflammatory diseases. This is certainly an area for further study.”

The study was sponsored by SetPoint Medical. Dr. Genovese disclosed receiving consulting fees from and having contracts with/grants with the company and acting as a consultant to Galvani and Vorso. He has also received research support from and served as a consultant to Sanofi/Genzyme, Genentech/Roche, and R-Pharm. Dr. Dörner was not involved in the study and commented as part of his role as the chairperson of the EULAR Scientific Program Committee.

SOURCE: Genovese M et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019; 78(Suppl 2):264. Abstract LB0009, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8716