Objective B cells are likely to contribute to the pathogenesis of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and rituximab induces depletion of B cells. The Exploratory Phase II/III SLE Evaluation of Rituximab (EXPLORER) trial tested the efficacy and safety of rituximab versus placebo in patients with moderately-to-severely active extrarenal SLE. Methods Patients entered with ≥1 British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) A score or ≥2 BILAG B scores despite background immunosuppressant therapy, which was continued during the trial. Prednisone was added and subsequently tapered. Patients were randomized at a ratio of 2:1 to receive rituximab (1,000 mg) or placebo on days 1, 15, 168, and 182. Results In the intent-to-treat analysis of 257 patients, background treatment was evenly distributed among azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and methotrexate. Fifty-three percent of the patients had ≥1 BILAG A score at entry, and 57% of the patients were categorized as being steroid dependent. No differences were observed between placebo and rituximab in the primary and secondary efficacy end points, including the BILAG-defined response, in terms of both area under the curve and landmark analyses. A beneficial effect of rituximab on the primary end point was observed in the African American and Hispanic subgroups. Safety and tolerability were similar in patients receiving placebo and those receiving rituximab. Conclusion The EXPLORER trial enrolled patients with moderately-to-severely active SLE and used aggressive background treatment and sensitive cutoffs for nonresponse. No differences were noted between placebo and rituximab in the primary and secondary end points. Further evaluation of patient subsets, biomarkers, and exploratory outcome models may improve the design of future SLE clinical trials.

No abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and tolerability of multiple intravenous (IV) doses of sifalimumab in adults with moderate-to-severe systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsIn this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential dose-escalation study, patients were randomized 3:1 to receive IV sifalimumab (0.3, 1.0, 3.0, or 10.0 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks to week 26, then followed up for 24 weeks. Safety assessment included recording of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs. Pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and pharmacodynamics were evaluated, and disease activity was assessed.ResultsOf 161 patients, 121 received sifalimumab (26 received 0.3 mg/kg; 25, 1.0 mg/kg; 27, 3.0 mg/kg; and 43, 10 mg/kg) and 40 received placebo. Patients were predominantly female (95.7%). At baseline, patients had moderate-to-severe disease activity (mean SLE Disease Activity Index score 11.0), and most (75.2%) had a high type I interferon (IFN) gene signature. In the sifalimumab group versus the placebo group, the incidence of ≥1 treatment-emergent AE was 92.6% versus 95.0%, ≥1 serious AE was 22.3% versus 27.5%, and ≥1 infection was 67.8% versus 62.5%; discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 9.1% versus 7.5%, and death occurred in 3.3% (n = 4) versus 2.5% (n = 1). Serum sifalimumab concentrations increased in a linear and dose-proportional manner. Inhibition of the type I IFN gene signature was sustained during treatment in patients with a high baseline signature. No statistically significant differences in clinical activity (SLEDAI and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group score) between sifalimumab and placebo were observed. However, when adjusted for excess burst steroids, SLEDAI change from baseline showed a positive trend over time. A trend toward normal complement C3 or C4 level at week 26 was seen in the sifalimumab groups compared with baseline.ConclusionThe observed safety/tolerability and clinical activity profile of sifalimumab support its continued clinical development for SLE.

ObjectiveEpratuzumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets CD22, modulates B cell signaling without substantial reductions in the number of B cells. The aim of this study was to report the results of 2 phase III multicenter randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trials, the EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2 trials, assessing the efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderately to severely active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).MethodsPatients met ≥4 of the American College of Rheumatology revised classification criteria for SLE, were positive for antinuclear antibodies and/or anti–double‐stranded DNA antibodies, had an SLE Disease Activity Index 2000 (SLEDAI‐2K) score of ≥6 (increased disease activity), had British Isles Lupus Assessment Group 2004 index (BILAG‐2004) scores of grade A (severe disease activity) in ≥1 body system or grade B (moderate disease activity) in ≥2 body systems (in the mucocutaneous, musculoskeletal, or cardiorespiratory domains), and were receiving standard therapy, including mandatory treatment with corticosteroids (5–60 mg/day). BILAG‐2004 grade A scores in the renal and central nervous system domains were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either placebo, epratuzumab 600 mg every week, or epratuzumab 1,200 mg every other week, with infusions delivered for the first 4 weeks of each 12‐week dosing cycle, for 4 cycles. Patients across all 3 treatment groups also continued with their standard therapy. The primary end point was the response rate at week 48 according to the BILAG‐based Combined Lupus Assessment (BICLA) definition, requiring improvement in the BILAG‐2004 score, no worsening in the BILAG‐2004 score, SLEDAI‐2K score, or physician's global assessment of disease activity, and no disallowed changes in concomitant medications. Patients who discontinued the study medication were classified as nonresponders.ResultsIn the EMBODY 1 and EMBODY 2 trials of epratuzumab, 793 patients and 791 patients, respectively, were randomized, 786 (99.1%) and 788 (99.6%), respectively, received study medication, and 528 (66.6%) and 533 (67.4%), respectively, completed the study. There was no statistically significant difference in the primary end point between the groups, with the week 48 BICLA response rates being similar between the epratuzumab groups and the placebo group (response rates ranging from 33.5% to 39.8%). No new safety signals were identified.ConclusionIn patients with moderate or severely active SLE, treatment with epratuzumab + standard therapy did not result in improvements in response rates over that observed in the placebo + standard therapy group.

No abstract