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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |