Cargando…

Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2)

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fleischmann, Roy M, van der Heijde, Désirée, Strand, Vibeke, Atsumi, Tatsuya, McInnes, Iain B, Takeuchi, Tsutomu, Taylor, Peter C, Bracher, Marguerite, Brooks, David, Davies, John, Goode, Christopher, Gupta, Anubha, Mukherjee, Sumanta, O’Shea, Ciara, Saurigny, Didier, Schifano, Lorrie A, Shelton, Celia, Smith, Julia E, Wang, Millie, Wang, Reena, Watts, Sarah, Weinblatt, Michael E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37699654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard-2023-224482
_version_ 1785147462702333952
author Fleischmann, Roy M
van der Heijde, Désirée
Strand, Vibeke
Atsumi, Tatsuya
McInnes, Iain B
Takeuchi, Tsutomu
Taylor, Peter C
Bracher, Marguerite
Brooks, David
Davies, John
Goode, Christopher
Gupta, Anubha
Mukherjee, Sumanta
O’Shea, Ciara
Saurigny, Didier
Schifano, Lorrie A
Shelton, Celia
Smith, Julia E
Wang, Millie
Wang, Reena
Watts, Sarah
Weinblatt, Michael E
author_facet Fleischmann, Roy M
van der Heijde, Désirée
Strand, Vibeke
Atsumi, Tatsuya
McInnes, Iain B
Takeuchi, Tsutomu
Taylor, Peter C
Bracher, Marguerite
Brooks, David
Davies, John
Goode, Christopher
Gupta, Anubha
Mukherjee, Sumanta
O’Shea, Ciara
Saurigny, Didier
Schifano, Lorrie A
Shelton, Celia
Smith, Julia E
Wang, Millie
Wang, Reena
Watts, Sarah
Weinblatt, Michael E
author_sort Fleischmann, Roy M
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints. Primary endpoint: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients. Primary endpoint: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03980483, NCT03970837.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10646845
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106468452023-11-15 Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2) Fleischmann, Roy M van der Heijde, Désirée Strand, Vibeke Atsumi, Tatsuya McInnes, Iain B Takeuchi, Tsutomu Taylor, Peter C Bracher, Marguerite Brooks, David Davies, John Goode, Christopher Gupta, Anubha Mukherjee, Sumanta O’Shea, Ciara Saurigny, Didier Schifano, Lorrie A Shelton, Celia Smith, Julia E Wang, Millie Wang, Reena Watts, Sarah Weinblatt, Michael E Ann Rheum Dis Rheumatoid Arthritis OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of otilimab, an antigranulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor antibody, in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Two phase 3, double-blind randomised controlled trials including patients with inadequate responses to methotrexate (contRAst 1) or conventional synthetic/biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (cs/bDMARDs; contRAst 2). Patients received background csDMARDs. Through a testing hierarchy, subcutaneous otilimab (90/150 mg once weekly) was compared with placebo for week 12 endpoints (after which, patients receiving placebo switched to active interventions) or oral tofacitinib (5 mg two times per day) for week 24 endpoints. Primary endpoint: proportion of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology response ≥20% (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat populations comprised 1537 (contRAst 1) and 1625 (contRAst 2) patients. Primary endpoint: proportions of ACR20 responders were statistically significantly greater with otilimab 90 mg and 150 mg vs placebo in contRAst 1 (54.7% (p=0.0023) and 50.9% (p=0.0362) vs 41.7%) and contRAst 2 (54.9% (p<0.0001) and 54.5% (p<0.0001) vs 32.5%). Secondary endpoints: in both trials, compared with placebo, otilimab increased the proportion of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) low disease activity (LDA) responders (not significant for otilimab 150 mg in contRAst 1), and reduced Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) scores. Benefits with tofacitinib were consistently greater than with otilimab across multiple endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although otilimab demonstrated superiority to placebo in ACR20, CDAI LDA and HAQ-DI, improved symptoms, and had an acceptable safety profile, it was inferior to tofacitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03980483, NCT03970837. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-12 2023-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10646845/ /pubmed/37699654 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard-2023-224482 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Rheumatoid Arthritis
Fleischmann, Roy M
van der Heijde, Désirée
Strand, Vibeke
Atsumi, Tatsuya
McInnes, Iain B
Takeuchi, Tsutomu
Taylor, Peter C
Bracher, Marguerite
Brooks, David
Davies, John
Goode, Christopher
Gupta, Anubha
Mukherjee, Sumanta
O’Shea, Ciara
Saurigny, Didier
Schifano, Lorrie A
Shelton, Celia
Smith, Julia E
Wang, Millie
Wang, Reena
Watts, Sarah
Weinblatt, Michael E
Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2)
title Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2)
title_full Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2)
title_fullStr Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2)
title_full_unstemmed Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2)
title_short Anti-GM-CSF otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic DMARDs: two phase 3 randomised trials (contRAst 1 and contRAst 2)
title_sort anti-gm-csf otilimab versus tofacitinib or placebo in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional or biologic dmards: two phase 3 randomised trials (contrast 1 and contrast 2)
topic Rheumatoid Arthritis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10646845/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37699654
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard-2023-224482
work_keys_str_mv AT fleischmannroym antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT vanderheijdedesiree antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT strandvibeke antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT atsumitatsuya antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT mcinnesiainb antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT takeuchitsutomu antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT taylorpeterc antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT brachermarguerite antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT brooksdavid antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT daviesjohn antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT goodechristopher antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT guptaanubha antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT mukherjeesumanta antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT osheaciara antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT saurignydidier antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT schifanolorriea antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT sheltoncelia antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT smithjuliae antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT wangmillie antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT wangreena antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT wattssarah antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2
AT weinblattmichaele antigmcsfotilimabversustofacitiniborplaceboinpatientswithactiverheumatoidarthritisandaninadequateresponsetoconventionalorbiologicdmardstwophase3randomisedtrialscontrast1andcontrast2